United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:40 pm

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ss-42.html

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
The only upside here is that I think there's some hope that the next generation is observing how much of a failure these people are and will not make the same mistake.

I think the idea that this (pissing away your child bearing years working as an associate at dunder mifflen and getting the train run on you by a different dude every week) is how you become a lonely, bitter woman is catching on. A few years ago even, people had a lot of apprehension towards that idea.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to google "sexual market value". It's really simple, but a lot of people don't grasp it and it's the reason these women are idiots.
Image

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
USN_Hokie wrote:
The only upside here is that I think there's some hope that the next generation is observing how much of a failure these people are and will not make the same mistake.

I think the idea that this (pissing away your child bearing years working as an associate at dunder mifflen and getting the train run on you by a different dude every week) is how you become a lonely, bitter woman is catching on. A few years ago even, people had a lot of apprehension towards that idea.

Yep, lots of bitter aunts rattling off dumb advice awaits these kids.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:27 pm
Posts: 1724
Yeah, no need for over-analysis on this one. She thought she was better than him, she thought he had shitty jobs, so she left him just KNOWING that a great rich guy even better than him would be plentiful. She was a shallow bitch that really did not love him. Oh well.. too bad for her she is only going to be someones mistress or FWB going forward.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5299
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
The problem is not that she had a career or even that she made more than him - the problem is that she stopped seeing her husband as an equal partner and decided that she could do better.

It's really not any different from the husband who strikes it rich and decides to trade in his wife for a newer, younger model.

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
BigDave wrote:
The problem is not that she had a career or even that she made more than him - the problem is that she stopped seeing her husband as an equal partner and decided that she could do better.

It's really not any different from the husband who strikes it rich and decides to trade in his wife for a newer, younger model.


Yes, hypergamy.

What she failed to realize is that women are a diminishing value in the sexual marketplace whereas men are the opposite.

So, she probably got hit on by some dude who's a 9 and said "hey, I can trade in this 8 for a 9". Women don't just dump a dude like that unless plan b is waiting. Only problem is that a dude who's a 9 might bang every chick, but he won't marry them. Now she's a 5 because she's older and fatter with some baggage, and wondering why she can't even get a guy who's a 6 to commit to her.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9213
I feel like I just read something from Oprah's book club or Women's Day or Cosmo.

What the heck?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
USN_Hokie wrote:
BigDave wrote:
The problem is not that she had a career or even that she made more than him - the problem is that she stopped seeing her husband as an equal partner and decided that she could do better.

It's really not any different from the husband who strikes it rich and decides to trade in his wife for a newer, younger model.


Yes, hypergamy.

What she failed to realize is that women are a diminishing value in the sexual marketplace whereas men are the opposite.

So, she probably got hit on by some dude who's a 9 and said "hey, I can trade in this 8 for a 9". Women don't just dump a dude like that unless plan b is waiting. Only problem is that a dude who's a 9 might bang every chick, but he won't marry them. Now she's a 5 because she's older and fatter with some baggage, and wondering why she can't even get a guy who's a 6 to commit to her.

Yep, both of y'all. She saw herself as superior and so traded stable for hookups only to run out of bait sooner than she thought. Now she has nothing and a wasted uterus.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9213
Dude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:18 pm
Posts: 674
RiverguyVT wrote:
I feel like I just read something from Oprah's book club or Women's Day or Cosmo.

What the heck?


Nailed it. CW hasn't even weighed in yet, so I'm sure this will get even better


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
fatman wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I feel like I just read something from Oprah's book club or Women's Day or Cosmo.

What the heck?


Nailed it. CW hasn't even weighed in yet, so I'm sure this will get even better


I guess I don't watch as much Oprah as you gentlemen.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:27 pm
Posts: 1724
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:49 am
Posts: 85
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Libertarian
USN_Hokie wrote:
Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to google "sexual market value". It's really simple, but a lot of people don't grasp it and it's the reason these women are idiots.
Image


Rollo Tommassi fan? Strongly recommend The Rational Male for every guy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
VTDante wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Anyone who doesn't understand this needs to google "sexual market value". It's really simple, but a lot of people don't grasp it and it's the reason these women are idiots.
Image


Rollo Tommassi fan? Strongly recommend The Rational Male for every guy.


I've heard of him. Don't really delve that far on this subject as I'm happily married, but it is interesting. I might have to check him out.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:27 pm
Posts: 1724
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"


Oh ok- but that problem is not unique to women. How many men get a company to pay for their MBA, then leave said company? many. Loyalty doesn't exist anymore- in both sexes. A woman leaving company A that invested in her to stay at home is no different than a man leaving company A for company B... unless you are arguing some socialist greater good nonsense- but I don't think you would. Also plenty of men leave the military after 4 years- plenty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5511
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"


Oh ok- but that problem is not unique to women. How many men get a company to pay for their MBA, then leave said company? many. Loyalty doesn't exist anymore- in both sexes. A woman leaving company A that invested in her to stay at home is no different than a man leaving company A for company B... unless you are arguing some socialist greater good nonsense- but I don't think you would. Also plenty of men leave the military after 4 years- plenty.

It's all irrelevant. As a business owner you compensate people for what they are worth to your business at that point in time, i.e. their value to the company. If they stay, great. If they leave both parties have benefited in what is a fair exchange. Never understood why people get so caught up in this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"


Oh ok- but that problem is not unique to women. How many men get a company to pay for their MBA, then leave said company? many. Loyalty doesn't exist anymore- in both sexes. A woman leaving company A that invested in her to stay at home is no different than a man leaving company A for company B... unless you are arguing some socialist greater good nonsense- but I don't think you would. Also plenty of men leave the military after 4 years- plenty.


I don't see the two as analogous. I can make an employee sign an agreement to stay with the company for x years if I pay for his MBA. I can't make a woman sign an agreement to not have a baby for x years if I pay for her MBA.

As for the military, retention is worse for females (as well as minorities). The reason is in part due to children, and many of them are on active duty while unable to do their jobs because of children. Women in the military, aside from some specific roles, is really a feel good measure at the expense of readiness and $$$.

This isn't socialist greater-good nonsense, this is about the current situation today. In fact, it is collectivist concepts like federal student loans which obscure the issue. Objectively, a lender would have far greater chance of repayment on student loan debts from a man than a woman based on potential earnings.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5299
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
USN_Hokie wrote:
I don't see the two as analogous. I can make an employee sign an agreement to stay with the company for x years if I pay for his MBA. I can't make a woman sign an agreement to not have a baby for x years if I pay for her MBA.

As for the military, retention is worse for females (as well as minorities). The reason is in part due to children, and many of them are on active duty while unable to do their jobs because of children. Women in the military, aside from some specific roles, is really a feel good measure at the expense of readiness and $$$.

This isn't socialist greater-good nonsense, this is about the current situation today. In fact, it is collectivist concepts like federal student loans which obscure the issue. Objectively, a lender would have far greater chance of repayment on student loan debts from a man than a woman based on potential earnings.


You also can't make someone promise not to have a serious illness that requires them to be out sick for three months.

Suppose, though, you made a non-gender-specific restriction that if someone was out for more than two weeks for any reason (other than vacation) that their calendar commitment got extended by that period of time. So you can have your three months of maternity leave (or paternity leave), but now instead of your commitment being five years, it's five years and three months. So we just tack it on the back end.

Obviously, there's no chance of the government doing it because it would be heralded as an example of the (phony) war on women. And any private employer of any size wouldn't do it for the same reason either. But it would be completely fair.

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"

Yep, I think it's broader than MBAs. We shouldn't encourage women to go to college or engineer primary education for their betterment as half will end up as stay at home mom's and always working males are being pushed out of academics. Should be the other way around, with a male focus on education and women being prepared with home economics.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9132
Location: New York, NY
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"


Loyalty doesn't exist anymore- in both sexes.


There was a time when big companies provided pensions and would maintain their work force in slow quarters and take the hit. Now when revenues fall, companies just lay people off. I can understand why corporate loyalty does not exist anymore.

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30095
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
What's almost as bad from a societal level are the women who do find a man and do try to have a career...only to give it up in order to be a mom.

It's a great choice for them, but it means society has wasted a whole lotta resources educating someone who stays in the work force for maybe 10yrs and quits as opposed to a man who will work day and night for 50yrs.

I've seen plenty of it in my life - women accepted to the academies only to punch out after their commitment....or during their commitment if you include maternity.

If I was king, depo-provera would be compulsory for women on active duty.


Aren't you the guy that equates daycare to child abuse and pretty much the worst thing ever? Don't you want Moms staying home to raise their kids?


You misunderstood my point. I'm making an argument that investing lots of money educating women who will only be in the workforce for a short time might not always be the best use of resources.

If it's their own money, that's one thing. But when it's other people's money, that's another. Of course, we'll never have an honest conversation about this ever because..."patriarchy!"


Loyalty doesn't exist anymore- in both sexes.


There was a time when big companies provided pensions and would maintain their work force in slow quarters and take the hit. Now when revenues fall, companies just lay people off. I can understand why corporate loyalty does not exist anymore.

That's true, companies broke the social understanding first. Loyalty isn't a one-way street.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 18524
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
BigDave wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
I don't see the two as analogous. I can make an employee sign an agreement to stay with the company for x years if I pay for his MBA. I can't make a woman sign an agreement to not have a baby for x years if I pay for her MBA.

As for the military, retention is worse for females (as well as minorities). The reason is in part due to children, and many of them are on active duty while unable to do their jobs because of children. Women in the military, aside from some specific roles, is really a feel good measure at the expense of readiness and $$$.

This isn't socialist greater-good nonsense, this is about the current situation today. In fact, it is collectivist concepts like federal student loans which obscure the issue. Objectively, a lender would have far greater chance of repayment on student loan debts from a man than a woman based on potential earnings.


You also can't make someone promise not to have a serious illness that requires them to be out sick for three months.

Suppose, though, you made a non-gender-specific restriction that if someone was out for more than two weeks for any reason (other than vacation) that their calendar commitment got extended by that period of time. So you can have your three months of maternity leave (or paternity leave), but now instead of your commitment being five years, it's five years and three months. So we just tack it on the back end.

Obviously, there's no chance of the government doing it because it would be heralded as an example of the (phony) war on women. And any private employer of any size wouldn't do it for the same reason either. But it would be completely fair.


You can control getting pregnant, it's a choice. You don't control getting sick, and both women and men get sick roughly equally (if anything it's worse for women).

Your idea is an interesting one, albeit likely illegal or at least a third rail for the reasons you suggest.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


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:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!