Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-26-2010, 04:31 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
Thanks for bringing it back to focus and I get your point
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-26-2010, 07:29 PM
Honestheart's Avatar
Honestheart Honestheart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
Not totally. I think there's something useful here. Remember the connection between the lack of emotional fulfillment and cheating. The point is not whether one uses a veto or a schedule, but whether one is having choices made for them or a responsible adult making relationship choices. A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
i quite agree with this. there is an underlying theme here of insecurity as well as lack of emotional fulfillment and communication barriers which can lead to cheating.
rules are fine, vetos can even be fine... in my honest opinion I think whether rules and vetoes and such work in a relationship is all matter of whether there is a healthy relationship built on trust. you trust each other to have the best interests of all parties at heart, you trust each other to not be thinking selfishly, and you trust each other to be honest about how you feel and to work thu any problems that arise.
when you lack in these things, i think thats when the horror stories of vetos and poly gone awry come about.... or am i waaaaay off?
as for how this applies to cheating.... cheating is breach of trust that may stem from a lack emotional fulfillment which may stem from not being honest and communicative which may cause a feeling of the need for secrecy which may lead to cheating on a partner.
i say may cus there are so many reasons a person cheats... sometimes, as scary as that sounds, it is just for fun....

and to further that thought...
sometimes cheating may result of unobtainable or unrealistic expectations placed on a person in a relationship...
like i said...many reasons behind cheating...all wrong...
__________________
"...Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." ~St Augustine

Last edited by NeonKaos; 03-26-2010 at 10:10 PM. Reason: merge posts
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-27-2010, 03:56 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
For me the veto I used was to protect my family and protect my husband from [SNIP] woman that he was in love with was using him in my opinion and he didn't see it. He saw it eventually and called it off himself.
I don't see this as a veto. I see it as you having some insight that your husband lacked, you sharing your insight with him, and asking him to make a choice for the good of the family. But it was he who made the choice, as opposed to you issuing a "her or your family" type ultimatum.

Quote:
I'm finding more and more that there is a trend in "poly talk" to make absolute statements about other peoples reality. Why is that?
I don't know why that is, and it's not just poly. Everyone does it. People find something that has worked in their life, and try to convince everyone that they must all go down the same path, even though they have different problems to solve, different growth to make, and different relationships to nurture. If there was only one solution for every problem, then counsellors and doctors would be completely useless...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat.
Protecting agains imagined threats, sure, silly. Protection against real threats? What kind of partner would you be if you didn't???

Quote:
Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections.
I'll protect my loves to the ends of the earth if they need it. That doesn't make me fearful. I don't go around looking for threats, but sometimes threats happen. Everyone can make bad choices, no matter how intelligent, compassionate, confident, or enlightened you are. If your loved one has made a bad choice and is too caught up in the moment to realize it, not only is it your right but your duty to help them as best you can.

Quote:
A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly.
Confidence doesn't give you some kind of magic glasses to see through the acts of people who are intentionally trying to mislead you. Some people are pathological liars, not psychopaths, and have spent their entire lives practicing at fooling people. They get to a point where they even believe their own lies. When you believe something, it's much easier to convince other people that it's true, even if it's pure bullshit.

Quote:
It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world.
The more you explore the world, the better your odds of having all kinds of experiences, both positive and negative. I'm definitely a proponent of exploring the world. But you'd be naive to believe that comes without its risks.

Quote:
An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely. Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. [SNIP] Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place?
This, I agree with. I don't see the point of vetos. My husband and I may not always have the best communication (work in progress), but we do have honesty and trust. We also trust one another's judgement. If one of us sees something in a situation that the other person doesn't realize, we are always willing to at least listen to the other's side of the story before marching ahead willy-nilly. This doesn't just apply to poly, but to anything in life.

We're both smart people, fairly good judge of characters, but that doesn't make us omniscient. Sometimes you get caught up in the moment, or blinded by emotions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
The likelihood of having a long-term relationship with a psychopath is extremely rare for two reasons. Psychopaths are rare, and psychopaths lack the commitment necessary for long-term relationships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
A person doesn't have to be a clinical psychopath to be destructive
Psychopaths may lack the emotional ability to actually feel love in a long term relationship, but that certainly doesn't prevent them from knowingly manipulating people to set themselves up in a cushy situation.

No one mentioned psychopaths until you brought it up, and I don't think that's what anyone was thinking of.

As mono said, a person can be plenty destructive without being psychopathic. More people than not grow up without enough tools to function in society as well as they could. And as much as I believe that these people have just as much right as anyone to be happy and to have fulfilling loving relationships, that doesn't make it our responsibility to provide them.

Quote:
Instead of a veto, a more surgical device would be a set of gas-and-break pedals. Vetos result in absolutest, black-or-white, thinking whereas a device for moderating the speed of a relationship allows for a wider range of possibilities.
So it's ok for me to be behind the driver's seat of my husband's relationships, as long as I don't drive them into a brick wall?
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-27-2010, 08:50 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honestheart View Post
i'm sorry if ever i come across as "this is the only way" i'm open and i ask a lot of questions and i put my 2 cents in... i lack the ability to adequately communicate at times too... i apologize in advance.
but i will say when i know 100% something is wrong... in this case..cheating is 100% wrong even if it involves feelings and a previous partner whose relationship recently ended.
Oh I really don't remember specifically who says what and where. I don't follow that kind of stuff, so don't worry, I wouldn't of noticed it was you in particular anyways. Really it is no biggy, just that when absolute statements are used in the same language over and over I begin to wonder why and who started them...

Being certain about something is dangerous in my mind, exercising some doubt and leaving space to be wrong has given me some really good lessons... even about cheating. There was a thread once that really made me think about it differently awhile back. I still think that it is a bad idea, but my passionate hatred for it has subsided and I can be more patient about it because of that thread... I choose to not be so certain I was right and new ideas came in that changed me... all good and insightful...

thanks for saying that though
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog

Last edited by redpepper; 03-27-2010 at 09:19 PM. Reason: spelling mistake
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-27-2010, 09:45 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat.
I put protection of my family at the top of my list, does that mean that if someone who think this were to meet me, and consider dating me and found that out that they would think I was anticipating a threat? I don't get it. It's a given no? that I would put my family first (especially as I have a child)? I certainly wouldn't put first someone I had just meet who MIGHT be in my life for the long haul. they would have to be merged into our lives and us into theirs. Part of that process is to consider my child who is wondering why the change in routine and who is this person... I will and do put him first, always. Does that mean I keep him from change? No, it means I consider his needs when thinking of my own. His and mine merge at that point. My needs are that his needs are met to the best of my ability... how is that a threat to a potential partner? If it is then I would suggest they find someone without a child. Actually, if someone interested in dating me actually believed that I probably wouldn't be interested in dating them as they WOULD be a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections. It also makes one question the legitimacy of existing relationships. A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly.
So I read this in terms of myself also, because I put my family first, that it is seen that I am fearful in my attitude and that the choices and assessment I have made in new connections are troublesome. I seem to be doing okay with my choices thus far. I don't have an evidence in my life of fear in terms of the choices I make in my new connections... at least not in terms of people being a threat to my family anyway.... why would it come across that if I have a family, that I have a duty to protect in the beginning of a new relationship, I am fearful and unable to make wise choices? and loving connections? Are you saying that because I have a family that I put first that I am unable to make wise choices in confidence? Because you have said this so absolutely this is how it reads to me. My choices of relationships have been for partners who respect that I put my family first. When asked they would probably say, "of course you should put them first, you are the mummy." Really, if anyone thought differently from that I would find that bizarre and selfish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world. They know that whatever happens, things will be ok because they already have love so they tend not to latch onto just anything that catches their fancy. They choose better friendships.
I'm sorry Thunky, I am not understanding how this relates to the rest of your post as it seems to contradict previous statements. Would you be so kind as to explain it further in the context of the point of your post? Thanks. I'm not sure it relates because it talks about what I am for for my child in terms of having love in his home, yet you have somehow linked it with parents being fearful and not confident...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely.
I agree with this for sure!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. This can be difficult when the sources of insecurities come from childhood, other formative experiences, or betrayals in the existing relationship.
I have full confidence in my partners and I protect my family. I can see how some would have one without the other but just because I have a need to protect my family doesn't mean I don't have confidence as you seem to have suggested it does. I don't think my need to protect my family comes from my childhood insecurities etc...so much as it comes from a mothers instinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place? Even a veto applied judiciously can mask deeper problems within the existing relationship. It is worth exploring why the established partners lack such confidence in themselves and in each other that they believe they need a veto to protect the family. After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.
Everyone has to start somewhere and I see no harm in starting with that... perhaps it would be a respectful thing to let a prospective possible additional family member know that this is the arrangement at the moment though. I see nothing wrong with telling someone who is interested in being with us and us them that we have a need to have a veto at the moment. Why not say it something like this, "we are just starting out with poly and need to make sure this is the right path for us. You coming into our lives and us into yours is a wonderful thing but is it a good idea for our kid? We need to explore that, we haven't done this before so please bear with us while we figure it out some more." Perhaps they may even want to discuss what that all means... furthering depth of relationship.

I don't think that anyone should go from zero to 100 when they start out. Taking it all slow for the sake of kids (or for any reason really) and vetoing someone that is troublesome to the changing and morphing family dynamic, that happens when someone new comes along, is valid to me if a family needs that. Would I prefer to see them cut lose gently and kindly, yes... but sometimes it warrants a sever for various reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Thought provoking comments Thunkbunny..thanks. I really like the idea of GAS and Brake.
yes I like that too

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
I don't see this as a veto. I see it as you having some insight that your husband lacked, you sharing your insight with him, and asking him to make a choice for the good of the family. But it was he who made the choice, as opposed to you issuing a "her or your family" type ultimatum.
Well, it started out as pointing it out and he flatly said I was wrong with no investigation. I did ask at that time, that for the sake of our family dynamic, that he find out and slow down a bit. He didn't. I eventually got very angry and told him that he had to stop NOW, as it was effecting me and his son that he wasn't present in out lives. He knows to take me seriously when I speak to him that sternly. He was surprised and concerned at that point. It was a type of hollow threat really and I'm not entirely proud of how I handled it. I don't know how to of done it differently though. I couldn't get his attention. I got it, and he choose for himself what to do. If he hadn't of I would of called her myself at some point and asked her to leave him alone, in as gentle a way as I could I guess, I don't know. Thank goodness I didn't have to.

After that he decided he couldn't be poly as he couldn't handle his emotions and desires within the poly structure in terms of him having another partner. It remains to be seen if he could have another female partner in his life. I don't see why not. He has a successful male partner and he chooses women differently now. He checks things out first before thinking with his emotions and desire.

All in learning. As I said, we all have to start somewhere and there is nothing wrong with fucking up and finding our way. How else do we learn if we don't.... everything is made to sound good in theory, but I can tell you, living it makes those theories sound like bullshit... they go right out the window it seems and are just useless words. I get that it is fun to theorize though I certainly enjoy it... but I take it with a grain of salt.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog

Last edited by redpepper; 03-27-2010 at 09:31 PM. Reason: grammer etc.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-27-2010, 09:21 PM
thunkybunny thunkybunny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
Default

Since we're back off-topic, what we have here is a difference not of opinions but rather a difference between relativism and strategy. Protectionism is a strategy of the weak, but it works well for the weak. Weaker relationships need protection while stronger ones do not because they can compete with outsiders. It's an interesting dilemma. How do you know your relationship is strong enough not to depend on protectionism to survive?
Furthermore, is survival enough?

Last edited by thunkybunny; 03-27-2010 at 09:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-27-2010, 09:34 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
'Protection' of one's family implies anticipation of an actual or imagined threat. Such a fearful attitude in life makes the choices and the assessments of new connections troublesome, because it diminishes one's tendency to make wise and loving connections. It also makes one question the legitimacy of existing relationships. A less fearful person/couple might have enough confidence to choose better partners, while the fearful tend to choose poorly. It's the same explanation for why children of loving homes tend to have the confidence to explore the world. They know that whatever happens, things will be ok because they already have love so they tend not to latch onto just anything that catches their fancy. They choose better friendships. An already secure and loving partnership does not need a veto, because the partners have enough confidence to choose wisely. Partners who feel they need to 'protect' their families would be better off concentrating on confidence-building before trying to connect with new people. This can be difficult when the sources of insecurities come from childhood, other formative experiences, or betrayals in the existing relationship. Why have an open relationship if the partners have so little confidence in each other's abilities to make good choices in the first place? Even a veto applied judiciously can mask deeper problems within the existing relationship. It is worth exploring why the established partners lack such confidence in themselves and in each other that they believe they need a veto to protect the family. After all, a new partner chosen wisely and lovingly can become an additional family member.
I really liked this-all the different parts. I talk A LOT about how my younger son is likely to be the one that "explores the world" because he's simply SO comfortable and confident in his relationships and his own self.

I find no need for a veto rule personally-and I think it's a lot of the same reasons you state.
I am very confident about what I do and don't want, so I don't chose relationships with people I wouldn't want to keep!
I am friendly with all of my exes and there is a reason-they are GREAT PEOPLE! Each of them has aspects that remain "precious" and "lovable" to me even though we found that our life paths were divergent!

I love Maca, I know that and I haven't a doubt in my mind that will never change. It matters not who/what comes into our lives-I love HIM-not what he does for me (I love what he does for me TOO).

Same with GG. I love GG. I know that and haven't a doubt in my mind that will never change. It matters not who/what comes into our lives-I love HIM-not what he does for me (hehe).

There is also this sense in me that I am a.... good chooser? What is that word?
And because of that I trust the guys to make good choices in people to have around our family. So there is no need for me to set "veto rights". There is an UNDERSTOOD veto right (which has NOTHING to do with polyamory and has existed in some sub-mental space forever) that ANYONE who tries to get between ANY of us (including my sister) and the kids-is OUT THE DOOR. Likewise anyone who is in ANYWAY detrimental or abusive to them-out the door. Doesn't matter if they are related or not. But it's not a matter of "I have veto over who YOU can bring" it's WE have veto over ANYONE who invades OUR family in a bad way-and we see it as "us against them" with "them" being undefined "bad guys".....

Interestingly-I was thinking while I was typing-and I would trust any of my exes with the care of my children.... I just KNOW that they are the kind of people I can. I would feel confident that my children would be well cared for physically, emotionally, psychologically, educationally... in every way-they would all put the childrens needs above their own and would do whatever was needed for them-even if I wasn't there.

And OF COURSE I trust Maca and GG with the kids-or they wouldn't be with me!



Thank you for sharing that well thought out explanation Thunk!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
I'm a die hard secondary in my relationship. I am proud of the supportive role I have. I am also completely dedicated to the health of the primary relationship and core family above my own needs. This is because I have had that already and recognize the importance of it. I accept the veto power of either primary partner because I trust and respect their ability to recognize a constructive situation as well as a destructive situation. If I had to leave it would be for a good reason. So the onus becomes less one sided on the primary partners to pick good partners and more shared with the secondary to pick appropriate partners. Secondaries need to own up to their responsibility in some cases and stop pointing fingers perhaps.
I also very much like this one.
I know that for me-I could accept someone else having a need for veto power... I don't feel that need(in the way it's discussed here as I explained in my last post)myself.
But it's IMPORTANT that each person in a relationship take equal responsibility to ensure that THEY are promoting a healthy, constructive situation and not a destructive one.
When everyone does that-then everyone has the ability to be confident that no "pointless" demands will be made, because everyone has the same type of priorities (might be different parts that are THE priority, but same type).

That makes it less a "veto rule" and more a "veto agreement"... (like I was outlining in my last post)
Yes?
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"

Last edited by NeonKaos; 03-27-2010 at 09:44 PM. Reason: merge posts
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-27-2010, 09:49 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunkybunny View Post
Not totally. I think there's something useful here. Remember the connection between the lack of emotional fulfillment and cheating. The point is not whether one uses a veto or a schedule, but whether one is having choices made for them or a responsible adult making relationship choices. A person making their own choices in cooperation with rather than in obedience to others is going to feel more fulfilled emotionally in the arrangement.
VERY pertinent I think. I think that part of the reason affairs happen (having been one who had an affair ) is due to feeling as though they have no options/choices or methods free to them to get their needs met.

In a healthy relationship we would all be looking at it going "huh, how can I possibly help you FIND the answer to that problem?". That's what we do for FRIENDS, and yet so often we don't do that with lovers.

If we work out the "kinks" in that cause those feelings of hopeless misery-we are likely to also work out the solution to avoiding affairs-in poly OR mono relationships.

Thunk-I've VERY much enjoyed reading your two cents!! Hope there are many more coming.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-27-2010, 09:52 PM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingRadiance View Post
That makes it less a "veto rule" and more a "veto agreement"... (like I was outlining in my last post)
Yes?
Ah, I think this works better for me.... "rule" just doesn't seem respectful.... actually I doubt I would be inclined to ever think of using a veto now. There is no need, now that we know more about how we are in our poly dynamic.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-27-2010, 10:27 PM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,049
Default

RP- (yes I'm doing well thanks-I know you will ask SOON AGAIN-you are so cool!!!)

I read it differently than you. Course-I also came in late to the whole of the conversation -so sure as heck don't quote me on it!

But the way I read it was more like...

if self-protection is the OPENING "topic" on one's mind when meeting new potentials-it taints things.

Where as OF COURSE one would prioritize that which already exists over that which does not exist yet!

But-as an example (not pertinent to poly in anyway but friendship):

When I joined the board-I started reading with a sense of security and comfort that nothing I read HAD to be accepted as "the way" but was all educational.
Then I really started reading a lot of the story with you and Mono and felt VERY comfortable taking my conversations with you two to a deeper more personal level.
GG-he felt VERY different. He was (unusual for him actually) VERY guarded and didn't want me to post pics of the kids or talk about any of us by "real name" etc etc. Course he ALSO wasn't on the board. But his reaction was of fear of the unknown POTENTIAL.

If you asked ANYONE in our lives-I am DEFINITELY the more "protective" one when it comes to hte family and kids, but for sure, we both prioritize the safety of this family over the "outside world".

The difference was that I trusted that I could take small steps and keep the family safe (that example of gas and brake pedals comes into play here) where as he was afraid that if I even went ahead AT ALL I might be putting the family at TOO MUCH risk....

Does that make sense?

Often times when people create "rules" for their family that are spoken-those rules hold back from GREAT and WONDERFUL opportunities that they could have had WHILE STILL KEEPING SAFE if they had simply put safety steps (like SLOW DOWN or PROCEED WITH CAUTION) instead.

At this point-GG is nervous as all hell because I am point blank that I AM GOING to go meet you guys. Not that he has ANY reason, no word, no action that shows him that there is a risk, just because he doesn't KNOW.

Whereas for me I look at it as-ok, I have a HOTEL of my own, rental car of my own and could JUST AS EASILY be meeting total strangers at the local hangout as meeting you! Which he was PERFECTLY comfortable doing when we went to Hawaii! We waltzed into the bar, played pool with the locals and the next thing ya know-we're all "friends"! So what's the difference?

The only REAL difference is in HOW we're putting safety nets into place.

I tend to agree with SOMEONE before me-that your situation isn't REALLY a "veto" but more of a "hey honey, what the heck is up with that?" and Polynerdist looking and saying "well no shit, thanks for pointing that out I wasn't even LOOKING in that direction".

That's strong healthy protection of the family when the different people in the family feel like everyone has each others back-but everyone also respects each others right to look for themselves too.... kind of "keep their manhood"... reminds me of being a teenager,
my baby brother, some guys were picking on him, I kicked their asses, brother was PISSED AT ME. I was confused and hurt. Dad came in and said-you know-you gotta let him keep his manhood L.R. Wait 'till he swings and then join in-that way it's you "backing him up" not you doing it for him.

__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adultery, affairs, break ups, cheating, love triangle

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 PM.