Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-14-2013, 11:12 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default

That's pretty freakin' interesting!

It looks to me like it's a *really* young site ... but growing rapidly if you take its youth into account.

Appears to only have local meetups in Oakland California so far. Just one city ... but: hey, it's a start.

It almost gave me a vibe of: "We're not quite ready to mix and mingle with white polyamorists yet, but -- we're warming up to the word polyamory which the white folks invented. Right now we just want our own place (starting with this website) where we can be and call ourselves poly and still feel comfortable sharing that experience with our own race."

Given the (seeming) newness of the site, this could become quite the powerful beginning of white and black polyamorists coming together.

Too soon to tell yet, but I'll be interested to see where it goes. (I did kinda "speedread" one of the site's entries -- its very first I think -- and was quite moved and impressed by it.)

Sigh; jeezh man and crap. Wish I wasn't already so far behind on [read: double-booked with, frazzled in, and overwhelmed by] all my internet stuff. Otherwise, I'd be seeeriously tempted to register right away on that site. Still might be a decision I'll be mulling over in my mind though. Might be looking for the right time and opportunity.

Kevin
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-15-2013, 12:17 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

http://www.jujumamablog.com/2012/07/...ack-community/

This was posted in the polyinthenorthwest group on facebook today. There's a thread on there currently with some interesting comments regarding this topic of racial minorities and poly.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-15-2013, 03:10 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default

Shewsh -- with any luck, I'll be spending some quality time on facebook this weekend and can have a closer look at that.

Right at the moment, I must even delay watching the (hour-long) interview; dinner will be up soon (considerably less than an hour). But a bit later tonight I might get opportunity to check it out.

I did read the review, and, I'm even acquainted (I believe), as a viewer, from a Ppercs thread (can look for it on request but laziness prevails for right now), with Kenya and Carl and some of their philosophies.

I'm actually in the process of reading "Sex at Dawn" but I'm a deplorably slow reader (and double-"booked" even, literally). I'm a bit more than halfway through it. So far, much good food for thought and I probably about 75%-90% agree with the authors' ideas and conclusions. I guess my only (or two main, anyway) "complaints" are:
  • I get how agriculture introduced problems to the human race but also think it introduced important new opportunities and remain stubbornly optimistic about humanity's (and by extension, Earthly life's in general) future;
  • I like the authors' thinking and reasoning about life 10+ thousand years ago, but I also maintain that trying to pry out surviving clues from a past so far distant will always force us to make educated guesses based on circumstantial evidence.
That's of course a smidge afield since the thread here (and your post) is about poly/race issues, whereas "Sex at Dawn" doesn't exactly delve into race issues and mostly deals with non-monogamy in general rather than polyamory in particular. But, it does appear that "Sex at Dawn" is a huge deal in Kenya's/Carl's views (as it is in many polyamorists' views), so as I say, just a smidge afield.

I'm definitely intrigued about a whole 'nother poly/race discussion going on out there. I'll be interested to see that.

Seems to me that the whole race-and-poly "problem" is something white polyamorists at the least ought to be enormously concerned about, and I even think it'll soon prove to be one of the most "talked-about" poly issues of our day. We deliciously-varying races really need to get together, in so many ways -- and I feel as if "now's the time" for polyamorists (by whatever name/terminology) of all colors to join hands.

Just my intuitive assessment ...
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-15-2013, 04:10 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,815
Default

It was noted in the thread I was reading that there is a black and poly group on fb as well.
I didnt delve into details. I dont have time for more fb groups anyway.
But-another tidbit of trivia.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-15-2013, 05:47 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default

Yep, I'm definitely at-capacity (e.g. where fb is concerned), so I won't tie myself to any promises yet, I'll just look at what I can, when I can. Info appreciated as always.

KDT
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-15-2013, 07:57 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default

Just finished listening to the http://www.jujumamablog.com/2012/07/...ack-community/ interview (with Kenya and Carl). It seemed to flow well in general.

The guy who was trying to speak for polygyny, so to say, seemed open-minded and willing to try to understand how a man can share a woman with another man, coming from a persective of not even knowing how that's done: Does the first man get to pick the second man for the woman, or what. So they (mainly Carl) explained to him that this is a choice for the woman to make for herself, according to her own needs. And that she might need different men at different times in her life, and Carl characterized that as a good thing and something for us to not try to hamper.

Another thing Carl pointed out about polygyny is that, like traditional monogamy, it has traditionally been about ownership: to wit, the man owns the women he's with (Biblical descriptions of ancient times rather characterized women as property, on a higher plane than cattle, probably, but property nonetheless, with the man having the say-so of how to handle the women he owned.)

Carl also indicated that traditional monogamy is similar to that today, in that when the marriage ceremony is complete, the groom now owns the bride, and the bride now owns the groom. He then explained that what we should be doing, no matter what relationship structure we choose and live in, is to remove that element and mindset of ownership. And that in that way, open marriage and polyamory generally make better alternatives than traditional (patriarchal) polygyny or traditional monogamous marriage. So again, he emphasized that this isn't because one structure is better than another, it's because poly and open marriage tend (in today's world) to relinquish the ownership paradigm that most monogamy and polygyny are built on.

So those were a couple of points. And of course Carl and Kenya both emphasized the idea expressed in "Sex at Dawn:" that 10+ thousand years ago, people within any given clan simply shared everything, from food to love to sex. This came more naturally in those days because agriculture hadn't yet been developed and become widespread, as once it did, and humans were thus nomads no longer (being now tied down to their planted fields), the concept of property was bound to emerge as the most obvious way to handle questions of, "Well I planted this field, but he planted that field."

Also from "Sex at Dawn" was the concept that to at least one or two cultures even today, the "problem of paternity" that monogamy proposes to solve, simply isn't considered a problem. It's enough to know who the mother is, and from there, the child becomes the responsibility of the whole community, and the men in particular take on a special responsibility to be fathers to *all* the children, regardless of whose genes came from whom. A man was/is a father, an uncle, a brother, whatever any given child needed him to be. No obsessing over paternity = no obsessing over sealing one-man one-woman pairings into the binding constraints of traditional marriage.

The most famous of this kind of culture today is a small population of Chinese folks, I believe. It's interesting to see how empowered the women are in that culture, and how, as a result, they are the guides (with their qualifications as the "gentler sex") of the community and have a glowing self-esteem about them, a twinkle in their eyes that comes from their power to share themselves with the men who want them and who they want in return. That's the main thing I got from that part of the book.

I also noticed that Kenya and Carl kind of advocated their own version of gender roles -- not so much physical gender roles as much as conceptual/spiritual roles. Carl seemed to feel it's important for men to be strong, to be protectors, not necessarily to make their emotions unavailable, but to "tame the woman within." In turn, Kenya emphasized a woman's role as a refuge of softness, nurturing, even natural wetness if you will; again not to become weak in society but rather to "change her inner man" so as to put him in harmony with her feminine nature.

I neither agreed nor disagreed with those gender role philosophies. I think something can be said for them, especially where cisgendered people are concerned. But I'd hesitate to call the "queer community" an aberration from these gender roles; rather I'd see them as a trading and/or admixture of roles.

But I have to say the most interesting bit of the interview was near the end, when Kenya described a past life of hers from 25 thousand years ago, in which she was a priestess (and a number of prominent people who've studied prehistory seem to agree that societies used to be much more matriarchal and that women, not men, were usually the religious authorities to whom men and women alike turned for spiritual guidance).

Well, in this clan, the men were returning from a battle/war they'd just fought with another clan, and the priestesses realized that war and battle can hurt and damage a man psychologically (if not physically as well). So, the men weren't considered fit to return to their families until the priestesses had healed this "spiritual wound" they carried home with them. And the cure, as perhaps you might guess, or perhaps might surprise you, was that the priestesses engaged in lovemaking with the men in a holy setting, in concert with various rituals intended to deepen and liven the sex and the love. Once this had gone on long enough that the priestesses deemed the men healed and reconditioned for life with their families, they sent the men home.

I saw in all this not so much the answers (or "magic bullet") that will solve everything, but rather new and exciting perspectives that we can all tap into to get our brains thinking deeply about sex, romance, love, healing, freedom, sharing, and the sacredness and venerability of these things and how they should and do relate to each other. The interview wasn't intended to address racial-polyamorous issues; rather it was intended to address polygyny and polyamory and how they can work, the pros and cons, etc.

It was probably serendipitous that the interview wandered somewhat, as the digressions allowed the discussion to dig deeper into the heart of what makes all humans tick (and has most likely since the first human emerged out of the jungles of evolution). It made the listener, in a word, ask himself: "Can I handle these concepts? Can I take them in? Can I let go of my possessiveness, especially of other people, and love them enough to let them fly free and then come back to me willingly if we're truly meant to be together?"

All in all, an interesting interview, well worth the hour investment to listen to it.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-17-2013, 11:45 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default P.S.

Re (from LovingRadiance):
Quote:
"This was posted in the polyinthenorthwest group on facebook today (Nov 14). There's a thread on there currently with some interesting comments regarding this topic of racial minorities and poly."
Finally got around to my facebook stuff today; looked for the polyinthenorthwest group; couldn't seem to find it.

Re (from LR's next post):
Quote:
"It was noted in the thread I was reading that there is a black and poly group on fb as well."
I did find the page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/blackpolyamory/ ... but was uncertain about joining since I couldn't see what conversations they were engaged in without joining. In the rules section it said, "THIS GROUP IS OPEN TO EVERYONE. With that said, we do not tolerate rascism, classism, cisgenderism or any other oppressive ism in this group EVER." Well I'm at least "cisgender" if not "cisgenderist" so that scared me off a little.

In conclusion:

If anyone can find/show me the exact URL addy for facebook's polyinthenorthwest group, and/or if anyone gets involved in https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/blackpolyamory/ or http://blackandpoly.org/ ... please post your info/experiences for/in those places on the net as I'd then probably be willing/able to investigate further.

I know, I'm showing my too-apathetic-to-investigate-further-without-the-extra-nudge side, after all I was just saying about how important the black/poly issue is. Please understand my time's all sucked reeeally dry right now, so I'm unofficially forced/supplied with the handy excuse to get lazy. Sorry guys ... ... still possible I could end up doing more of my own poking around in time (e.g. if/when the cosmos so seems to guide me).
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-19-2013, 10:27 PM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
It's like saying it's okay to have sexual relations with a child if the child consents. The child doesn't have enough experience in life to give genuine informed consent.

I guess I kind of wandered off-topic there, but let's just say those are some of my thoughts about men having relations with multiple women.

I appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
You're right, you wondered off-topic with that and believe me you most likely don't want to open up that "can of worms" especially in "North American Culture".~

Most "North American cultures" are very close-minded and bigoted when it comes to the discussion of any thing children-related that goes too far from their comfort zone and that is why I with the most sincerity discourage any talk of subjects like these here as I have seen this community on this site is no where near the open-mindedness required to properly discuss matters such as sexual relations with children.~

Perhaps on a philosophy forum, but not here.~

Sincerely,

ColorsWolf
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:09 PM
Dirtclustit Dirtclustit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Middle of Oregon
Posts: 431
Default I'll chime in

to say that perhaps this thread should be merged with the other thread, because quite Frankly, I am having trouble understanding the "problem" you are trying to address of even discuss

perhaps you could clarify for US kevin, because to be honest, it has the same very bigoted tone of Helo's thread, wherein he stated:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sounding bigoted
...From what I've seen, non-whites are a very small part of the poly community but when they are part they tend to be accepted wholesale. In the local group I've been to, there are maybe ten (out of ~50-60) people who are non-white and of those five or so are black. I've never seen anyone treat them with anything less than respect, I've seen them get physically involved with other people (and couples) with no discomfort on either part....
now, of course it may have been unintentional that he would choose to use the phrase "...they tend to be accepted wholesale..." because Frankly, I find it offensive, and not funny at all. I guess under certain circumstances -- like if her were performing a stand up comedy routine where the context is a stand up comedy routine -- anywhere else that shit isn't funny, especially since his next line is "get physically involved" which sounds like an assault.

I am fully aware of the many erudite bigoted people who think it is OK to utter such poisonous sentences and clauses so long as it isn't blatant. I am of the opinion that it is the subtle ones, that are more dangerous and do more damage to any community, and as a result the entire civilization of all collective Human Beings, and such people are not an US that I will ever refer to as WE, but rather a THEM, as in not ME, not anyone I would call friend of the person YOU, so certainly Not US or WE.

I understand people make mistakes or say stupid shit sometimes or even lose their temper, but all this bullshit about aspergers, or totally misunderstanding the difference between the relationships you share your life in, and the love that should be shown for those within a community, and the respect when there is an absence of love.

You don't need an excuse or reason for who you offer yourself, your life, and your love to share with nor do you need any reason for who you do not. That is not bigotry, and people who do not recognize the difference between autonomy of each person to choose their own immediate family, with wrongly discrimination, or not people I would ever choose to be friends with of even live in the same town. The only exception being those who genuinely desire to understand why bigotry is wrong, and those people don't go around intimidating others of marginalizing them by employing subtlety.

I fully understand who some people do not like to hear, that you can have any reason you want for not accepting someone's advances or offers to share their life with you, in fact it may be the one choice that is totally and completely up to each of you as individuals, and you need no reason or even a rhyme. It is OK to decide yes or no to any person's love that is offered to you.

It's the one choice that has less to do -- for some people -- it has less to do with rejecting because of any characteristic their are, and truthfully it may be closer to something they are not. Because such a large portion of love and lust is mental, it can prove nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly what you desire in mates and partners. For instance I once thought a woman was "one of my ones" until I heard her speak of another person for using the term "desire in a mate or a partner" instead of the plural forms of the word. And that idiot psychologist concluded by that one clause, another woman was "mono" no matter what she ever did or how she acted nor how much she desired to be any other way.

and I thought to myself, "God damn, she is the most confused person I have ever seen in my life coupled with the most arrogant, all while believing they are travelling on the highest plane possible"

the worst kinds of behaviors are the hateful, bigoted ones, and the most dangerous are the ones that aren't recognized, for they are the ones where the fucking idiot claims to be behaving righteously, or worse, laboring for God or Christ

Last edited by Dirtclustit; 11-19-2013 at 11:26 PM. Reason: typo and added thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-20-2013, 01:42 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 3,611
Default

Re (from ColorsWolf):
Quote:
"Most 'North American cultures' are very closed-minded and bigoted when it comes to the discussion of anything children-related that goes too far from their comfort zone and that is why I with the most sincerity discourage any talk of subjects like these here as I have seen this community on this site is nowhere near the open-mindedness required to properly discuss matters such as sexual relations with children."
Yikes. So as to "cover my ass" if you'll pardon the expression, I officially definitely wasn't advocating having sex with kids (and especially wasn't advocating adults having sex with kids). I way wouldn't wanna miscommunicate my position in that area.

Fundamentally, the one maxim I'll wholeheartedly commit to is: "It's all about consent." From there, peoples everywhere are bound to wonder and argue about what constitutes *true, informed consent.* Brainwashing and juvenility are both conditions of mind that could be argued (and for many folks, such as North American folks, there's no argument about it, it's just self-evident and boy if it's not you're in trouble buddy) to negate any possibility of authentic consent.

I don't/won't say where on that "spectrum" (e.g., Is 18 the age at which true, informed consent becomes possible? The answer isn't always "Yes" even in the United States; it depends on what State you're in) I fall. All I intend/intended to do is point out that brainwashing could (at least in theory) be compared to juvenility as far as one's ability to give informed consent is concerned.

---

Re (from Dirtclustit):
Quote:
"I'll chime in to say that perhaps this thread should be merged with the other thread ..."
Umm; sure; let's merge it with the other thread. Why not? Both threads are about race and poly. Mods, mods? Admins? Anyone anyone, help help. (Dirtclustit, you must understand that I'm neither mod nor admin, thus pleading to those who are mods/admins is the most I can think of to do to rectify the situation.)

Quote:
"... because quite frankly, I am having trouble understanding the 'problem' you are trying to address or even discuss."
As I attempt to communicate (thoughout millions or billions of personal English dialects), the problem (or is it a problem) I'm trying to address/discuss: Ain't it sad that so many white folks show up to "my" poly potlucks, but so few black (or Native American, or Latino, or Hispanic) folks show? I feel sad about it. I hope it's not because those other races feel left out, or like they have no place in a "white-by-definition" poly potluck, or whatever. Is there anything we "white polyamorists" can do to help make our fellow "not-so-white polyamorists" feel welcome (and even desire to mingle) amongst us?

Re: sounding bigoted ... I don't mean to be dense, but truly I know not how/why I've come across as a bigot. I mean sheesh, my experience as a missionary in Detroit, all by itself, was enough to inspire in me a lifelong love for African Americans (and not the condescending kind, either). For the record, I totally like African Americans (and dark-toned peoples of all nationalities), but if I miscommunicated myself in that regard, I'd appreciate if you'd elaborate on the nature of my miscommunication, because y'see, that way I can do better about not offending anyone in the future and I'm all about that. Examples will probably help me, if you could give me some.

Lots of examples becoz: Helo's statement didn't sound bigoted to me. It just sounded like he was saying, "Hey, I've seen a lot more white than black folks at poly functions; nevertheless I've never seen any black attendee treated badly in any way by the whites in attendance." I suppose you could interpret that as, "Whites are more tolerant than blacks." I just interpret it as meaning, blacks and whites are starting to learn how to come together, in some poly communities at least.

Or, or, if the interpretation be, "Blacks obviously don't have the cojones to be poly like whites do," then I'd say, I think Helo's understanding of the situation is that blacks *do* practice polyamory, they just don't *call it* polyamory. As a whole. Very broadly speaking. Certainly a lot of blacks do indeed call it polyamory, which seems like a hopeful sign for "both races."

Re:
Quote:
"Now, of course it may have been unintentional that he would choose to use the phrase '... they tend to be accepted wholesale ...' because frankly, I find it offensive, and not funny at all."
Whoa whoa whoa! I don't think Helo was trying to be funny. By "wholesale" I think he meant, "in 'bulk' or large quantity, and/or, indiscriminately," rather than, "of or relating to sale in large quantities, for resale," as in the selling of slaves. I trust you're not worried any appreciable portion of whites (or blacks) in the United States is interested in or intent upon the re-established selling of black slaves. True many folks (e.g. whites) are certainly still full of racial hatred, but not so much so that they'd like to re-establish the black slave trade.

Yes I think Helo's choice of the phrase "... they tend to be accepted wholesale ..." was quite unintentional, or more to the point, not at all meant as a reference (serious or silly) to selling (wholesale or piecemeal) human beings. Ironically, prostitutes "sell themselves," but that's a completely off-topic can of worms.

As further irony, pet breeders sell the non-human offspring that they breed. Ahem, see Feelings on "Pets" for more on that particular can of worms.

Re:
Quote:
"I guess under certain circumstances -- like if he were performing a stand up comedy routine where the context is a stand-up comedy routine -- anywhere else that shit isn't funny, especially since his next line is 'get physically involved' which sounds like an assault."
Assault? Hell no. Perhaps Helo inadvertently gave that impression, but I think "get physically involved" was his way of referring to couples (and polycules) of mixed race. The message in essence being, "Hey, isn't it cool that blacks and whites can get romantically involved with each other, and lots of polyamorists are able to accept and support that romance."

Re:
Quote:
"I am fully aware of the many erudite bigoted people who think it is okay to utter such poisonous sentences and clauses so long as it isn't blatant."
Well that makes one of us. Not saying no such thing exists, just saying it's unusual. Knowledge usually lends itself to open-mindedness, though not always. But if you're thinking Helo is somehow furtively trying to blackball blacks or whites, I proffer the consolation that I think he's probably not. I think Helo is all about repairing the tear between various races, not ripping it further open.

So were Helo's sentences inadvertently poisonous? I don't know. Probably to some (many?) people. Seemed fine to me though, based on how I interpreted them.

Re:
Quote:
"It is okay to decide yes or no to any person's love that is offered to you."
Damn rights! You hit the bullseye there, as far as I'm concerned. [meant in all musterable honesty]

Re: race and romance ... well I sure don't know how inclined the "average" soul of one race is to be attracted to a soul of another race. I just know that "bi-racial" romances are A-O-K in my book.

That said, I believe in every individual's right to experience, "choose," and express attraction (not to mention admiration/friendship) towards another able-to-truly-consent person, for really any reason. Looks (I love your face), body shape (I love your curves), mind (I love how you think), or whatever. Whatever gets that individual excited. We should try to be "friends with everyone." But I (on behalf of all humanity including myself) reserve the right to "limit" romance to those cases in which both (or more) people "feel the chemistry" towards each other. It's magic, it's unexplainable, and it's part of what makes romance so inticing.

Re:
Quote:
"You don't need an excuse or reason for who you offer yourself, your life, and your love to share with nor do you need any reason for who you do not."
Ah you took the words out of my mouth.

Re: all this bullshit about Asperger's syndrome ... I lost the relevance of that motif, unless it be that people don't try to accept/get aspies as they are (and note that I myself have been diagnosed Asperger's among other things).

Re: "unrequited love" ... completely allowable on the "shying-away" person's part no matter what his/her reason for shying away. Though respect/friendship (platonic at least) are good things for all of us to shoot for.

Re: the ability of a (man or) woman to transition from mono to poly ... I know it's a real phenomenon, because I've seen it happen. Example: the very MFM V of which I'm a part today. Our lady started out with a monogamous paradigm, but she's nothing if not good at changing her mind after reading up on a subject and getting a new perspective about it.

Re:
Quote:
"The worst kinds of behaviors are the hateful, bigoted ones, and the most dangerous are the ones that aren't recognized, for they are the ones where the fucking idiot claims to be behaving righteously, or worse, laboring for God or Christ."
I'm with you there brother.
Regards,
Kevin T.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 11-20-2013 at 01:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:46 AM.