The International Canoe

The forum for the International Canoe
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:48 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 56
Alan has asked me to post the results of the 2008 Ballot.....

Image

_________________
K26


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 1
Many people are waiting to hear the results of the ballot, and the delays must make some people wonder what is going on. The results posted below were provisional. Unfortunately, the various countries interpretted the voting regulations differently and the committee is debating the impact and way forward. As a basic recap, here is an e-mail I sent the committee today.

Dawn

Dear Ben, Allen, Ola, Arne and Kevin,

We all recognize that the question on the ballot, which boils down to
"should the DC replace the Nethercott as the IC" is the most important
decision facing the class (and this committee) in our generation. There is
no doubt the future of the class depends on this committee making the right
decision. It is also clear to us that depending on how the votes were taken,
and then counted, the motion may pass or fail. In Ben's spreadsheet of March
13 the difference is one person's (not one country's) vote. Earlier
spreadsheets showed different results, and they were also very close. In
fact, it could not be a closer vote.

We have a set rule amendment procedure. It is quite clear on how the vote
should be taken, and how the votes are counted. For the block votes,

"3. Votes of each National Association shall be determined by the number of
paid up registered IC owners (members) as recorded on 1 March in each
year..."

This very clearly says that someone who votes must a) own an IC themselves
(not borrowed, not half-built, i.e.,"registered"), and must b) be a member
of their National Association (BCU, USACK, etc.). The procedure also states,
"Note: Each National Association is responsible for determining eligible IC
Class members. Ownership of an IC and membership in the national
organization is an essential requirement." This note, which is not an
additional requirement, but an administrative note, simply clarifies who
does the legwork. It is not the ICF Committee that checks whether the voter
meets the requirements, the National Association has that job. It does not
grant the National Association additional rights to change the rules. This
procedure cannot be interpreted any other way. For example, if a country has
12 canoes, 8 owners who were paid-up members of their National Association,
and 5 who voted, then their block vote is based on the 8. If the country has
15 paid up members, 12 voters and 7 ICs, then their block is based on the 7.
Both criteria must be met.

Where that country's block vote is committed is also clear, "To vote for
change a National Association must obtain a 66% majority of members who
vote, otherwise it should vote for the status quo." In the first example
there were 8 who met both criteria but only 5 who voted, so 4 would have to
vote for change. In the second example, there were 7, so 5 would have to
vote for change. Those who voted but did not meet the criteria would not
have their vote counted.

As stated in the procedure, the very strict voting regulations are "...that
it ensures stability and gives time for the proper evaluation of proposed
changes." The reason for this is clear, any change will impact the value of
the owners' investments in time and money.

We are facing a number of issues surrounding the vote:

1. Was there a deadline? The answer is not clear other than the 16 weeks in
the rule and the February 23rd deadline for votes to be turned into the
National Authority. Certainly if everyone has voted, then the deadline is a
moot point. However, since the only official deadline has not been reached,
voting modifications must be allowed until the official deadline or all
countries have voted. Each country must also be reminded if no response has
been received. I understand that we have an ICF deadline, so it is important
we act quickly.

2. Did all countries uniformly follow the rules above? The answer is not
ambiguous, it is clearly "no". The e-mails today from Steve and John clearly
reflect this.
Given the importance of this vote, it is our
duty as the top level in canoe sailing to make sure that the vote was done
correctly. If we do not do that, we have failed in our duty to oversee canoe
sailing. It is clear that the differences between how the countries voted is
simply different interpretations of the English language. That is
understandable given the international flavor of the class. The only fair
solution is to go back to each National Association and ask them to resubmit
their numbers in accordance with the rules and to clarify to them what it
means. That is the only way we will truly know what the actual vote is. We
cannot let our personal biases get in the way of our jobs on the committee.

It is inconceivable that we would change a voting regulation midstream. That
violates the basic premise of the rule of law. No established democracy
allows that. We can offer interpretations, but cannot change the procedure
until after the vote is concluded. If we change the ground rules we are no
better than a government ruled by a mob.

My goal is to make sure the vote is fair and to the class regulations. At
the moment it is quite clear it was not done to the regulations and may not
have been fair to the IC owners. If I feel we did not accomplish both those
goals, I will have to vote against both accepting the ballot as valid, and
if the committee does decide to accept it regardless, then I will vote
against the motion, effectively killing it. Too much is at stake here.

Dawn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:45 pm
Posts: 48
Location: Massachusetts
I conducted the ballot in an impartial manner according to the best information that was provided. If I thought that the results would change if your concerns were addressed, I could understand your position, but it is clear to me that the results of the ballot would not be changed.

John Kells
US Fleet Secretary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:34 am
Posts: 239
Location: Australia
Dawn,

Thanks for the update, Im sure every DC convert is pleased to hear something about what it going on, even if, as in this case the news isn't what we want to hear. The silence has been rather scary for us.

I agree we cannot change the rules midstream and rules should be adherd to as close as practicaly possible. Have they in this case, only those in the know (nationals reps on the ICF Sailng Committe and each national association secretary/president) can say. I take your word that it needs to be revisited, and trust the committee to do so.

Your post raises some questions for me, which would be great to get clarified by the Sailing Committe and or yourself.

-Are the numbers of registered IC owners (members) as of March 1 forward each year to the ICF Sailing Committee? Otherwise how can it be deterimined by the ICF SC if the results of the ballot as submitted by each national authority is correct to the procedure.
- What defines IC owners (members) is it just people who own (member) a "Nethercott" or do AC's and DC's owners (members) count in the vote? I would imagine they would have to count as the are included within the Canoe Sailing Rules of the ICF.
- On the numbers game and voting, in your second senerio there are 15 paid up members and 12 voters and 7 IC's therefore would it be correct that only the 7 members who are both paid up members and own one of the 7 canoes eligible to vote, so there should have only been 7 votes cast for within that nation.
- Further on the numbers game, what happens if a boat has two owners that are both paid up members are they both entitled to vote? (yes I know of one IC that has had two owners as paid up members)

In the future will as balck and white view be taken on all Canoe Sailing Rules of the ICF. I know of a number of rules which a "blind eye" has been turned before eg:
- The number of nations and continents requirements haven't always been adheard to in a black and white manner.
- Propulsion rule.
- Contrasting band.
- Size of course.
- Color of the Class logo on the sail.
These are all rules we are meant to be governed by when racing for a World Championship, which would hae to be considered as importand and vital as a possible change in the class rules. Yet I have seen a number of instances when these examples of our rules have been ignored. Do we stay black and white only on possible change of the rules, when it could be by some concieved convenient, when a blind eye or flexibilty for the sake of the good of all is applied on so many other occasions within our class.

I do agree we must get this rule change correct and it will affect the future of Canoe sailng internationally to the point it may spell the demise of what I consider the absoulte best ever sailing boat in the World.

Personally I wish to convey to all members of the ICF SC and to all Canoe sailors who are reluctant to approve change my overwhelming beleif that accepting the change will be positive for Sailing Canoes and not changing will spell the end of International competetion i.e. World Championship for our Class. It has to do with numbers once again back to the old 6 nations 3 continents issue.

I never expected to see 100% acceptance of the new rules. Infact the corner I thought may return less support provided much stronger than I expected. The straw pole at McCrae showed an overwhelming support towards the change I was suprised by the percentage of hands that shot straight up in support. I expected there would have been more hands than the few who did, vote against. Again I was suprised by some who voted for and against as I wold have put a number of them down as voting the opposite to what they did.

The appendix 4 rule has created a huge amount of interest world wide, and has gained new blood into the class and re-ignited the passion of some long time loyal IC sailors. Imagine the first time you sat off the end of the plank of the IC, how great was that feeling, Now imagine that feeling magnified by 2-3 times, that was how good the rides on the 3 DC's was for me.

Ive been sailing IC's for a fairly lone time now. I've gone a long way towards working out how to sail one in a reasnoable manner (6 national champs, 1 World Champ and 1 New York Canoe Club Cup win). I build my own boats and own a complete set of molds and jigs to build a Nethercott. I cant imagine me never owning an IC, I only just as of mid last year got the courage to sell my first IC which was built in 1991. My current IC is less than 12 months old (hang I think she has just turned 1 :) ) do I want to sell/get rid of her no way she's a keeper, but I have parts curing while I type for my appendix 4 canoe. I have as big an investment in IC's as they are, as anyone but I believe the change is for the better, it is for the security of our class long into the future.

Regards
Hayden
IC AUS20 "Twist of fate"

P.S. Twist of Fate hasn't turn 1 yet she was still being built this time last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:31 pm
Posts: 21
Location: USA
This was my reply to Dawn's most interesting note which I had not realized was posted on the forum. Since it has, I should go ahead and post it.

Hayden also raises some good points. And after we get through this patch we should work on them.

ben




>
> Dear Ben, Allen, Ola, Arne and Kevin,
>
> We all recognize that the question on the ballot, which boils down to
> "should the DC replace the Nethercott as the IC" is the most important
> decision facing the class (and this committee) in our generation. There is
> no doubt the future of the class depends on this committee making the right
> decision. It is also clear to us that depending on how the votes were taken,
> and then counted, the motion may pass or fail. In Ben's spreadsheet of March
> 13 the difference is one person's (not one country's) vote. Earlier
> spreadsheets showed different results, and they were also very close. In
> fact, it could not be a closer vote.

YUP, in fact I was surprised how many were in favor; I expected a resounding defeat.

>
> We have a set rule amendment procedure. It is quite clear on how the vote
> should be taken, and how the votes are counted. For the block votes,
>
> "3. Votes of each National Association shall be determined by the number of
> paid up registered IC owners (members) as recorded on 1 March in each
> year..."
>
> This very clearly says that someone who votes must a) own an IC themselves
> (not borrowed, not half-built, i.e.,"registered"), and must b) be a member
> of their National Association (BCU, USACK, etc.).

In different countries there are different standards for membership in their National "canoe sailing" Association which is probably what we should have said. In some countries like the US and Australia there is no requirement to be a member of the ICF recognized organization unless you compete at a world championships. In some countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zeeland, it is actually quite difficult to get the ICF recognized association to accept canoe sailing at all. In Germany, Sweden and the UK you need to be a member of the ICF recognized association to compete in Nationals I believe. In the US, USCKA has been in violation of the ICF statute that requires the "national association" to pay expenses of attending meetings. Further in the US and in Australia the "national associations" have never provided any support for hosting world championships again in violation of the ICF rules.

Recognizing all this, the intention was to have membership in the National "canoe sailing" Association ; the committee was not going to set out how this would be determined. Even owning a boat is tricky: at what point does a boat come into existence? When it is numbered, probably, but there is no way for a national authority to check on the state of the boat.
When it is measured? Perhaps, but since measurement standards differ from country to country with the only international uniformity being worlds requirements that too is something that the committee can't define. Unfortunately it was not spelled out.

And further, the intention was to make the block size based on the fact that people cared enough to vote, however this too was not spelled out.

The philosophy was not to be exclusive but to be inclusive of people who are active in the class. And it is not the Committee's role to second guess the countries. We can only accept what is presented. What was in the spreadsheet of the 13th was to the best of our knowledge a fair summary of the situation as presented by the representatives of the various nations. There were a couple of corrections from the initial presentation of the 12th at the request of the person presenting the information.


The procedure also states,
> "Note: Each National Association is responsible for determining eligible IC
> Class members. Ownership of an IC and membership in the national
> organization is an essential requirement." This note, which is not an
> additional requirement, but an administrative note, simply clarifies who
> does the legwork. It is not the ICF Committee that checks whether the voter
> meets the requirements, the National Association has that job. It does not
> grant the National Association additional rights to change the rules. This
> procedure cannot be interpreted any other way. For example, if a country has
> 12 canoes, 8 owners who were paid-up members of their National Association,
> and 5 who voted, then their block vote is based on the 8. If the country has
> 15 paid up members, 12 voters and 7 ICs, then their block is based on the 7.
> Both criteria must be met.

This language does not deal with cases where an association does not charge dues. Not something we had thought about but something that has certainly been the case for the last few years in the US.

This note can be interpreted to be administrative.... in fact it fairly reflects the philosophy of the committee which was to give each nation's canoe sailors the maximum freedom to run their affairs anyway they saw fit. The first line is the most important bit in the whole document.

>
> Where that country's block vote is committed is also clear, "To vote for
> change a National Association must obtain a 66% majority of members who
> vote, otherwise it should vote for the status quo." In the first example
> there were 8 who met both criteria but only 5 who voted, so 4 would have to
> vote for change. In the second example, there were 7, so 5 would have to
> vote for change. Those who voted but did not meet the criteria would not
> have their vote counted.
>
> As stated in the procedure, the very strict voting regulations are "...that
> it ensures stability and gives time for the proper evaluation of proposed
> changes." The reason for this is clear, any change will impact the value of
> the owners' investments in time and money.

No one disputes this.
>
> We are facing a number of issues surrounding the vote:
>
> 1. Was there a deadline? The answer is not clear other than the 16 weeks in
> the rule and the February 23rd deadline for votes to be turned into the
> National Authority. Certainly if everyone has voted, then the deadline is a
> moot point. However, since the only official deadline has not been reached,
> voting modifications must be allowed until the official deadline or all
> countries have voted. Each country must also be reminded if no response has
> been received. I understand that we have an ICF deadline, so it is important
> we act quickly.

The only deadline was to get the vote in by the 23rd of February. This happened and was fairly reported by Allan who processed the material as soon as he could which was by March 12. This all did not happen within the time interval spelled out in the procedure. Unfortunately the ICF changed regulations. We can say that we must allow the full length of time to run out in which case this whole thing is moot and as the ICF will not take it up technical changes again until the spring of 2010. No matter how the time was counted and how fast the ballot got out after the worlds there would not have been enough time to comply with the rule change procedure.
>
> 2. Did all countries uniformly follow the rules above? The answer is not
> ambiguous, it is clearly "no". The e-mails today from Steve and John clearly
> reflect this.

Back to the language that states that each country is responsible for determining eligibility. This is what was done in the material submitted to Alan.

After Alan reported the results based on what was submitted to him, people chose to take issue with the ways that the national authorities reported.


> Given the importance of this vote, it is our
> duty as the top level in canoe sailing to make sure that the vote was done
> correctly. If we do not do that, we have failed in our duty to oversee canoe
> sailing. It is clear that the differences between how the countries voted is
> simply different interpretations of the English language. That is
> understandable given the international flavor of the class. The only fair
> solution is to go back to each National Association and ask them to resubmit
> their numbers in accordance with the rules and to clarify to them what it
> means. That is the only way we will truly know what the actual vote is. We
> cannot let our personal biases get in the way of our jobs on the committee.

We can do this, certainly. Whether this will change anything is doubtful. We have to give national authorities the right to run their affairs as they see fit.

So what will happen is a change in the number of 'members' should said national authority chose to do so. And that would affect the block sizes. The Canadians, the Australians, the Swedes and the Germans each would go up a number. Everything else would stay the same.
>
> It is inconceivable that we would change a voting regulation midstream. That
> violates the basic premise of the rule of law. No established democracy
> allows that. We can offer interpretations, but cannot change the procedure
> until after the vote is concluded. If we change the ground rules we are no
> better than a government ruled by a mob.

Actually since the committee voted the procedure in the first place the committee can vote to stop it. Lets keep the rhetoric in check. I too am uncomfortable at changing the voting procedure right now. It is clear, however, that it needs clarification.

Using Alan's interpretation is perfectly reasonable. He is working with the data that he got. There are two interpretations possible for block size and eligibility. Alan chose to use the same criteria for block size as for the base vote number which since he was part of the meeting that started all of this was a reasonable interpretation.


> My goal is to make sure the vote is fair and to the class regulations. At
> the moment it is quite clear it was not done to the regulations and may not
> have been fair to the IC owners. If I feel we did not accomplish both those
> goals, I will have to vote against both accepting the ballot as valid, and
> if the committee does decide to accept it regardless, then I will vote
> against the motion, effectively killing it. To much is at stake here.

The only thing that is real clear is a majority of sailors in the world wide community of people who cared enough to vote, voted in favor of change.

Personally speaking ( not as chair) I was surprised as many of the voters voted against their own self interest. To me that was telling. If this passes we do need to figure out how to keep Nethercotts in play on the worlds stage until they reach the end of their world class lives.

What may actually be harder, for countries like the US and UK to set out how sailing for the National silver will happen; same for the Euro cup. Unless there are always two divisions with some mechanism to determine who gets the silver, I can see some creative use of Portsmouth numbers.

Ben

_________________
Ben Fuller
Macavity
USA 172


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:54 pm
Posts: 202
Location: Australia
Despite all the procrastination, legal and procedural waffle, blockading, and meaningless and endless postings, my understanding is that the vote no matter how it is counted is only a token indication to the sailing committee who may decide to do what ever they like, with or without the agreeing with the vote. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Consequently, despite not getting the answer some at least were expecting, why can not the commmittee do what is obviously the wish of the vast majority of canoe sailors who were interested enough to vote, and change the rule.

Otherwise this is becomeing a farce and you will not only be losing a lot of new and potential converts to canoes but I would be imagining losing all credibility with the powers at ICF. Why should they be interested in a mob of sailors remote form their core busness who can not even agree how to run their own sub branch.

I saddly fear I can see a quick demise for the world's oldest dinghy class and all its history.

_________________
Design perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing else to add but when there is nothing else which can be taken away.
http://philscanoes.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:02 pm
Posts: 654
Location: Australia
Phil Stevenson wrote:
Despite all the procrastination, legal and procedural waffle, blockading, and meaningless and endless postings, my understanding is that the vote no matter how it is counted is only a token indication to the sailing committee who may decide to do what ever they like, with or without the agreeing with the vote. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

Consequently, despite not getting the answer some at least were expecting, why can not the commmittee do what is obviously the wish of the vast majority of canoe sailors who were interested enough to vote, and change the rule.

Otherwise this is becomeing a farce and you will not only be losing a lot of new and potential converts to canoes but I would be imagining losing all credibility with the powers at ICF. Why should they be interested in a mob of sailors remote form their core busness who can not even agree how to run their own sub branch.

I saddly fear I can see a quick demise for the world's oldest dinghy class and all its history.


No Phil, you have it right, according to our rules the Committee can make any decision it likes regardless of the ballot results. Wonderful isn't it.

Even better than that is that all the challenging of the ballot is being done by he same commitee members who approved the processes for DC approval back at Sarasota and also approved the methods for the ballot. Amazing how this much effort wasn't put into reviewing documents and processes by certain people before the ballot, but is now being put in place to block any rule change and effectively curb development and class growth.

_________________
http://icflatpack.blogspot.com/
IC Promo DVD: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zgdo4p90jHo
2008 IC Worlds DVD: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5_PUxqP0ssg

Australian IC Website: http://www.internationalcanoe.yachting.org.au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:42 am
Posts: 79
Location: Australia
Phil Stevenson wrote:
Despite all the procrastination, legal and procedural waffle, blockading, and meaningless and endless postings, my understanding is that the vote no matter how it is counted is only a token indication to the sailing committee who may decide to do what ever they like, with or without the agreeing with the vote. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)


Not quite right. The proceedure states:

A. Proposals for rules amendments must be approved by:
1. A unanimous vote of the ICF Sailing Committee
and
2. A 75% majority of the votes of National Associations which record their votes
as specified in Rule 3.

Note the word "and". The committe may veto the member vote, but they can't approve the change without the support of the members. So I guess it is important to make sure the voting procedure and membership definition "as specified in Rule 3" has been followed, even though it may be blindingly obvious what the outcome ought to be.

Mal.

_________________
AUS019


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 2:26 pm
Posts: 160
Phil, Christian and others:
Let's keep the matches away from from the gasoline.
The time table is as it always has been, the Sailing Committee Chairman needs to report to the ICF Board and they are the final stamp of approval.
It would have been lovely 100% of the people agreed, but they don't. So the resolution takes a bit longer and is harder to reach. It would be helpful if everyone realized that the people sit on these committees because they believe it is the right thing to do. They are not doing it for personal gain or to have power over others.
So let's all back off a bit, and let the process roll on, the final piece is played at the April 11 ICF board meeting in Spain.
SHC

_________________
Beatings will continue until morale improves


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:29 pm
Posts: 85
Location: United Kingdom
I'm with Steve on this, processes take time and the ICF are doing this in a short time frame of a few months. The outcome is not as expected at the moment. I think the membership needs to be advised of contents of the report that Ben Fuller is submitting to the ICF board meeting in April. Will it contain any recommendations other than those approved by the membership?

_________________
colin brown


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:31 pm
Posts: 21
Location: USA
There will be a full report and a minute that will be posted before I head for the BOD meeting on the 9th.

The business will be pretty much the ballot. There is a lot of other stuff that needs to happen but that is the priority.

I appreciate people's patience on this. Doing the meeting electronically means that there are time zone challenges.

_________________
Ben Fuller
Macavity
USA 172


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DC Ballot results
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 9:46 pm
Posts: 236
Location: United Kingdom
Having followed this debate, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the voting process, one (obvious!) thing the Committee really needs to take on board would be the consequences of not going where almost 80% of the world's Canoe sailors who were bothered enough to vote want to go. The DC, or new rules IC has been let out of the box, it exists, its is popular and nobody is going to be able to put it back in the box. This is a fact of life, unless the change of the IC rules is passed there is a real danger of the DC becoming a new 'class' on its own attracting a strong following and we will then have three types of sailing canoe aiming to race internationally! The international fleet is not big enough to survive a messy three-way split. In a development class once a radical change has happened, those who have tried it will never want to go back to the past, they will either give up Canoe sailing or 'go do their own thing' in the new type of boat. Unless development classes embrace changes that have proved to be popular they will fade away. Not accepting this change of rules will do more to damage the Canoe class as we now know it than will accepting the wishes of the big majority and accepting change.

I write as a psychologist, albeit now retired and thus also as a grand old man of the fleet! Inevitably Canoe sailors will now vote with their feet and pocket books for the new type of Canoe. It would be a real shame if we are left with an outcome where the ICF is left trying to accommodate (catch up with) that change long after it has hapened, that would be very messy and would do the class no good at all. Let pragmatism rule the outcome as majority opinion is respected.

Colin Newman


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group