Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Sterilisation for Drug Addicts Options · View
rxtales
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:50:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised


I came across this story a few days ago. A drug charity is offering £200 to drug addicts to be sterilised.

I personally don't like this idea. £200 is a lot of money when you're a drug addict. Vasectomies can be reversible, but female sterilisation isn't. It's not that I think that addicts should have children - I don't, but it's not to say that someone who is an addict can "recover".

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:06:37 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
They don´t do it because it looks like a nazi policy...but they should do it, eveywhere. It's a crrime to bring a baby into this world if you are not able to give him/her a decent childhood.

If a drug addict rehabilitates, there's plenty of parentless kids to adopt.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:48:52 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
there were doing it in Arizona too for awhile. i say go for it! i think its a responsible choice actually.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:21:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
I have a problem with it. Out of all the full-on junkies I've ever known, there are only a few that I would consider rational enough to be able to give consent to such a procedure. Those few are well off enough to not need the cash. The rest of them, I would consider in a state of temporary insanity. The drugs and squalid and insecure living conditions have their minds so messed up that they would probably agree to just about anything. Later on in life, if they clean up and get straight again, how many will regret their choice? How many will sue, claiming that the sterilization procedure was forced upon them while they were under duress, or under the influence of drugs and not thinking clearly?

Maybe in other places, where you have more severe tort laws, but not in America, in this day and age.
mercianknight
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:24:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
Hell yes it is a good thing. On the positive side, the addicts are given the choice, plus it prevents unwanted/unplanned kids being dragged through hell by irresponsible parents......

......on the negative side? It's not compulsory. coffee

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:11:33 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
MrNudiePants wrote:
Later on in life, if they clean up and get straight again, how many will regret their choice? How many will sue, claiming that the sterilization procedure was forced upon them while they were under duress, or under the influence of drugs and not thinking clearly?


i would rather have a small handful of people who would make good parents live with regret than the MANY that produce children in this state of "insanity". and im no lawyer but i know i sign waivers every time my kid ride a horse or some other equally dangerous thing. im sure there can be something signed to prevent most lawsuits

maybe a real lawyer can chime in on that..
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:55:24 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
LittleMissBitch wrote:


i would rather have a small handful of people who would make good parents live with regret than the MANY that produce children in this state of "insanity". and im no lawyer but i know i sign waivers every time my kid ride a horse or some other equally dangerous thing. im sure there can be something signed to prevent most lawsuits
.


I was talking to Nudes one day, and he summed up the "American" way like this: That the individual is protected, as opposed to other cultures, where the needs of the many outweigh the specific case of the individual. He didn't phrase it exactly that way, so he's free to take issue if I somehow got it wrong, but it was in a conversation where I was talking about my socialist tendencies and what they mean to me.

Anyway...

Isn't this a perfect example of that measuring stick? It's more likely to happen and be accepted in countries with more socialistic outlooks ("the good of the many outweighs the possible misfortune of the few"), than in America, where the persecuted and outnumbered are specifically protected.* I definitely see the reasoning for the US having that philosophy, and from what I've read, the ACLU does necessary work. In this day and age, the corporate/government machine will run roughshod over everyone and everything it can, and somebody's got to counteract that. But I can also see the other side, especially in this case. What about the rights of the many? And how are rights violated if it's by volunteer? They may regret being sterilized, but that seems like a flimsy reason to not offer it. Don't teen moms, former violent gang members, deadbeat dads, and convicted felons experience a similar kind of lasting regret?

Besides, there's always adoption.


*The only difference is who is considered 'the persecuted', and it depends on what group you identify with. Somehow, conservatives have it in their heads that white christians are persecuted these days, which they deserve to be laughed into the next continent for. The white, conservative man is still the bullying, alpha dog- they are just fearful of a day when that's not the case. Still though, they're pretty certain it's the case now, and pretty angry about it. I love this country.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:37:30 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
I think it's a good idea. So what if they sober up and/or get straight and regret having it done. That's the price they pay for their mistakes. They can adopt, use a surrogate whatever. But the biggest reason is that children born to these people grow up in shit, drugs, illegal activities, crap living conditions etc. A lot of times they're used as barter for drugs too. Whether being sold outright or prostitution and porn.
Most of all they're usually not born healthy. Fetal alcohol syndrome is just one of the problems that can arise. Higher chances for Hepatitis, AIDS, brain damage and on and on. I'm pretty sure junkies don't have much insurance either. So then the state picks up the bill for not only the birth, WIC and food stamps but, now the long term care of the child as well.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:08:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
There used to be a system in place where a convicted criminal would be given a "choice". Go to prison for a lengthy term, or enlist in the Army (or Navy, or Foreign Legion, depending on your nation of residence). This practice was eventually outlawed, based on the idea that any contract made under duress isn't a valid contract, no matter what the terms. One of the problems I see with this lies in that dreaded of all concepts: the Slippery Slope.

If it's voluntary now, how long before it becomes mandatory? And who decides how it's regulated? And how are the doctors regulated? How long before there are black-market reversals leaving bloody women lying in heaps in dark alleyways? How long before the doctors are giving the women kickbacks, and not really performing the operations? Just taking the money and filling out the forms? And what in God's name makes anybody think the Government has any rights in side our bodies in the first place?

How about this: A lesser amount of cash, in return, they get the shot? This way they're out of the breeding pool for a while, but if they sober up, they can just let it wear off naturally?
She
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:21:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
It sounds like plan to me. I would defenitely prefere if junkies would get psychological examination before they will succumb for operation. I think it is realisable in my country at some point. Addicts are geting free needles for years now and if they want to get themself off heroin country is offering them free methadone as well. The question is if Slovenia is ready to pay any money to them since it is crisis there..It could never be pulled in parlament in this period.. But it is a good plan for the future.
rxtales
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:37:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
MrNudiePants wrote:

Maybe in other places, where you have more severe tort laws, but not in America, in this day and age.


It's actually a US charity out of North Carolina that started this, and then brought the idea to the UK.

It's a little extreme. Why not encourage women to get the coil or something as a temporary way of encouraging them not to have children.

I bet this wouldn't get pressed on parents who didn't have time for their children, or drank a little too much alcohol. I have a major problem with this. I used to do all drugs under the sun. I smoked heroin, snorted cocain and even shot up a few times. I don't think anybody should be forced to undergo this.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:42:07 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
MrNudiePants wrote:
There used to be a system in place where a convicted criminal would be given a "choice". Go to prison for a lengthy term, or enlist in the Army (or Navy, or Foreign Legion, depending on your nation of residence). This practice was eventually outlawed, based on the idea that any contract made under duress isn't a valid contract, no matter what the terms. One of the problems I see with this lies in that dreaded of all concepts: the Slippery Slope.

If it's voluntary now, how long before it becomes mandatory? And who decides how it's regulated? And how are the doctors regulated? How long before there are black-market reversals leaving bloody women lying in heaps in dark alleyways? How long before the doctors are giving the women kickbacks, and not really performing the operations? Just taking the money and filling out the forms? And what in God's name makes anybody think the Government has any rights in side our bodies in the first place?

How about this: A lesser amount of cash, in return, they get the shot? This way they're out of the breeding pool for a while, but if they sober up, they can just let it wear off naturally?


ok, yeah, nudie...i see all your points there.well, some of them. and there is corruption in every system, so yes i can see a lot that happening. but ill tell ya...i dont give a CRAP if they think its "under duress" after they get sober. im not sure there would be soo many black market reversals since sterilization i think would be more than just tying tubes. and i dont get the Gov't part of it if its voluntary then why would they participate in it at all? i see no reason it would become mandatory. and as for Gov't control regarding our bodies...the Pro Lifers sure do think they should have some control.

but mostly...can you tell me what "shot" you mean? BC shot has to be given at least several times a year as far as i know so im not sure that would work.

it IS possible that an addict can clean up and have a productive life...im sure most of us can site someone they know personally who did. but the TRUTH of it is that they are a very very small minority. most DONT clean up and they do produce children and like ChefKathleen said, when that happens we get more unproductive, addicted people put back into society that we have to pay for.

how about this...instead of sterilization they can have free abortions...thats a social program i can back 100%. anything though to prevent more unwanted, unloved and abused children. in fact, id say that a rehabbed addict would be more likely to want to adopt...to love a child that maybe had gone thru what they did..that led to their addiction in the first place.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:44:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
rxtales wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

Maybe in other places, where you have more severe tort laws, but not in America, in this day and age.


It's actually a US charity out of North Carolina that started this, and then brought the idea to the UK.

It's a little extreme. Why not encourage women to get the coil or something as a temporary way of encouraging them not to have children.

I bet this wouldn't get pressed on parents who didn't have time for their children, or drank a little too much alcohol. I have a major problem with this. I used to do all drugs under the sun. I smoked heroin, snorted cocain and even shot up a few times. I don't think anybody should be forced to undergo this.


not forced! never forced! just given the option is all. if we can find an option that renders them infertile for a LONG period of time (more than a year) then i can see it being just as effective but as far as i know that does not exist yet.
mercianknight
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:49:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
Nudie makes me laugh!!

His optimism for the junkies and their rights shines through and yet he is all doom and gloom that the system and medical profession would, en masse, take advantage of their poor souls and start taking their 'split' of a lousy 200 notes from this marginal element of society who suck out more from the system than they ever put in. Will there be some who do meet Nudies lowest expectations of humanity? Absolutely, but they will be caught (eventually) and punished.

Something like this would obviously have to be thought through, with screenings, controls, registration et al, so governments will have their grubby little fingerprints all over everything anyway. And so what if someone wants to pay for a reversal once they 'sober' up - it's their money and if they are deemed clean enough to warrant a reversal then, presumably they would be disqualified from a repeat sterilisation.

Think of the children nudie, or rather the unborn children who will be saved from torment.

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:29:50 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,858
Location: Cakeland, United States
You know Mr Knight, back...14 to 17 years ago, when I was snorting and smoking cocaine like it was going out of style, procreating was the very last priority on my self indulgent and totally narcissistic menu of choices.

The ingestion of many drugs goes a long ways towards self sterilization, as it is.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:35:53 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,910
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
You know Mr Knight, back...14 to 17 years ago, when I was snorting and smoking cocaine like it was going out of style, procreating was the very last priority on my self indulgent and totally narcissistic menu of choices.

The ingestion of many drugs goes a long ways towards self sterilization, as it is.


LOL...no comment on that one...

I think if you start offering payment for sterilization to drug addicts, the ACLU will start to argue that it's prejudicial...I mean, why not offer to pay other groups to get sterilized??? I can certainly think of a few...my neighbors, for instance...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:49:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
DirtyMartini wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
You know Mr Knight, back...14 to 17 years ago, when I was snorting and smoking cocaine like it was going out of style, procreating was the very last priority on my self indulgent and totally narcissistic menu of choices.

The ingestion of many drugs goes a long ways towards self sterilization, as it is.


LOL...no comment on that one...

I think if you start offering payment for sterilization to drug addicts, the ACLU will start to argue that it's prejudicial...I mean, why not offer to pay other groups to get sterilized??? I can certainly think of a few...my neighbors, for instance...


Mine too! Hell, I'll even pay for it and I'm broke!
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:27:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
As Mr Nudie pants said "They would agree to anything!"

That means they would agree to have sex and bring a child into the world! Some foster parent and care workers have to look after that child and the expense that brings onto to Uk goverment in that child life time compared to a man having the snip! I say YES a addict shouldn't be able to bring children into the world!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:15:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
mercianknight wrote:
Nudie makes me laugh!!

His optimism for the junkies and their rights shines through and yet he is all doom and gloom that the system and medical profession would, en masse, take advantage of their poor souls and start taking their 'split' of a lousy 200 notes from this marginal element of society who suck out more from the system than they ever put in. Will there be some who do meet Nudies lowest expectations of humanity? Absolutely, but they will be caught (eventually) and punished.


More like some lowlife getting junkies to sign the form, then selling the signatures for the $200. The doctor makes his cut and they both walk away.



mercianknight wrote:
Something like this would obviously have to be thought through, with screenings, controls, registration et al, so governments will have their grubby little fingerprints all over everything anyway. And so what if someone wants to pay for a reversal once they 'sober' up - it's their money and if they are deemed clean enough to warrant a reversal then, presumably they would be disqualified from a repeat sterilisation.

Think of the children nudie, or rather the unborn children who will be saved from torment.


Because the government is so good at administering things efficiently and in a low-cost fashion. (LOL) I think the goal of a program like this is an admirable one, but unless the method of birth control can be made so that it wears off over time, I'm against it. It's just too rife with areas where mismanagement, incompetence, or outright criminal behavior can seriously impact someone's life for the worse.
Rontre
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:08:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/6/2010
Posts: 805
Location: Right here
If anyone needs to be sterilized it's the freaks (to put it mildly) that prey on the young children all over the world. The addict has the ability & the available resources to turn their life around if they truly want to change. How about sterilizing the alcoholic. This group of people are responsible for more deaths to the innocent (or not so innocent) than any other class of people. They also have the option, should they choose to do so, to turn their life around. The child molesters will continue to do what they do best. Molest. Should a child be born with an addiction then it should be put up for adoption. As they are I believe. There are many childless couples who would jump at the chance to adopt these children. Sterilize junkies? $200.00? I have known many junkies in my lifetime & the greatest majority would laugh at such a proposal. Sure, there would be some to go for it & it would be to societies advantage to get their genes out of the pool. $200.00? Years ago that would might have got me through the day. Sterilize the sexual predators; or better yet hang them by their ????????????????

Guest
Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:48:29 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Rontre wrote:
There are many childless couples who would jump at the chance to adopt these children.


300,000 kids in the US foster care system. lets not bring in ANY more drug addicted unwanted babies.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:04:29 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 7,214
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Getting $200 in exchange for your reproductive abilities is really appealing to the bottom level addict... the ones that will probably never turn their lives around or get off the streets. Most rehab and community health centres have containers of free condoms in their reception areas. It's assumed that no addict who lives on the streets and whose eyes light up at $200 for a permanent life changing choice is going to want to get pregnant or get someone pregnant anyway. I wouldn't have any issue with the offer being available. I don't think that many addicts will jump at the chance, and those who do, after signing the appropriate waivers will be better off being sterilized, and so will the rest of society.

Having said that, after reading all the arrogant, judgmental comments in this thread, I sincerely hope that none of you ever ends having any loved ones suffer from addiction. The level of compassion here is "astonishing."

Of course, you are all the same people who will rant about protecting children from abuse. The addicts are usually those same children... just the grown up versions... But I guess once they hit 16, nobody gives a fuck about them anymore anyway, right?


Guest
Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:12:39 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
Reading through this was amazing. I was thinking the same thing as Dancing Doll.. that only if we could all be perfect and never screw up in this life than none of this would even be an issue. Drug addicts are a problem.. but where do most of those addicts start? The hosptial or clinic down the road. Go get a prescription for vicodin for a back ache and before you know what hit you, your addicted to those pills. Not all drug addicts are the junkies on the street corner.
Guest
Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:22:45 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
i have loved ones that suffer from addiction. and guess who is taking care of their children? their family members. kids that were abused and forcibly removed.

i do have compassion...for the kids. would much rather have a girl NOT born than have her be sold by her crack head mother at 10 for sex so she can get high. or how about the addict dad (my BIL is friends with the mom) that raped his 2 year old daughter while he was high. cuz some fucking court decided he should have shared custody.

its not like this is a forced thing. its a CHOICE. and a responsible one at that ... probably the most responsible one they will make until they make the choice to clean up..if they ever do.

and, if we can find a semi permanent solution...say something that lasted only a couple of years and was easily reversible then im all for it. till then i still vote YES sterilize them if they want it.
She
Posted: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:43:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,628
LittleMissBitch wrote:

i do have compassion...for the kids. would much rather have a girl NOT born than have her be sold by her crack head mother at 10 for sex so she can get high. or how about the addict dad (my BIL is friends with the mom) that raped his 2 year old daughter while he was high. cuz some fucking court decided he should have shared custody.

its not like this is a forced thing. its a CHOICE. and a responsible one at that ... probably the most responsible one they will make until they make the choice to clean up..if they ever do.


I agree with this, seriously if "we" can save 1 child from being abused, in any way, in excange to sterilise millions of addicts I would still vote for it because it is worth it.
rxtales
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 2:53:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Of course, you are all the same people who will rant about protecting children from abuse. The addicts are usually those same children... just the grown up versions... But I guess once they hit 16, nobody gives a fuck about them anymore anyway, right?


That's a really good point. It's exactly why I started taking drugs. I was definitely an addict, but a pretty high functioning one. I went to school, got half way decent grades...

I think it's hard for people to know what addiction is really like until you go through it yourself. It's always frustrating to see family members go through it, turn down help, and you still feel like you have to pick up the pieces. I've been there. It's makes it difficult to have compassion for other addicts.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:34:47 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,858
Location: Cakeland, United States
Like you, Rx...I considered myself to be a high level functioning addict during my invited cocaine dependence. Of course in my line of work, I could easily slip away from humanity for extended periods of time. Computer networks don't notice the jaw flaunching, streaming beads of perspiration, elevated heart rate and inability to form coherent verbal sentences. Or the white paste that used to stain my upper lip.

I was still paying my bills, making my financial obligations to society. I wasn't out stealing or mugging or trying to operate in public. I thought that if I caved in my house and snorted my ounces behind locked doors (with blankets and sheets tacked up or newspapers taped over windows...that I wasn't bothering anyone).

I was pretty fucked up in my head back then. lol

And like I mentioned earlier, the paranoia from the massive ingestion of my drug of choice, pretty much made me antisocial to the point that finding a sex partner and engaging in careless sex seemed like a massive waste of time. Hell, there were ounces to get rid of!

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
JayDee
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 12:43:24 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/2/2009
Posts: 11
As is true in the case of yesterday's "sub-human" slave and the disenfranchised woman of the 19th century, societal mores quickly overtake our tardy identification of what, and who, is guilty of aberrant behavior. Are today's drug addicts new appointed subjects for medically oriented social experiment ala Dr. Mengele?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 12:59:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
You're missing the point, JayDee. The addicts have to give permission. It doesn't matter whether or not they're in their right mind when they sign. It doesn't matter if they can't understand the language in the form that they're signing, or if they can't even form a coherent sentence. It doesn't matter that these are real people we're talking about, or that they were children once, but something caused them to dive off the deep end. It doesn't matter that someday they might actually heal themselves enough to rue their actions. The only thing that matters is that they're addicts, and someone says, "I'll pay you to sign here." In the New Society, niceties like protecting the weak and caring for the pitiful downtrodden don't matter. The needs of the monied outweigh the needs of the fey. Isn't that as it should be?
Guest
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 3:56:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 816,693
tell you what nudie...when the weak and pitifully downtrodden do even ONE thing to help themselves instead of just taking taking taking all they can get then ill care. then ill help. fuck..i could easily be one of them, im no stranger to addiction but the difference is i dont WANT to be weak and downtrodden. people have said here that they they were high functioning addicts, why? cuz they chose not to be one of the weak and pitiful.

and why are we protecting them and not the children they are going to bring into the world and abuse and turn into addicts themselves? i fully understand addiction is a disease but you can CHOOSE to get clean, to go to rehab. but they dont, or rather not always. im SICK of paying for people, and their offspring, that contribute NOTHING to society. sure they COULD contribute, sure there is POSSIBILITY and they choose not to exercise it. so fine, thats their choice. yet im required to pay their bill. no thanks.

ok, how about we pay them the $200 to go to rehab so that they might contribute to the society they have been leaching off of? would that be better? sure. will they go? doubt it.

im all for helping your fellow man nudie but they have to at least try. no one did it for me, no one made my life the way it is. i did. i chose it, i work for it. i got no hand outs. well except for the stimulus check Bush gave me a couple years ago. ;)

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.