Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-18-06, 01:57 PM   #1
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
HH's version of VC v.s. what?

I think a lot of bandwidth is wasted here with assertions about the way I present vehicular cycling as being biased, or incorrect, or twisted, etc. Lately, these have mostly come from Chipcom, Bekologist and Brian Ratliff.

For the record, I'm the originator and the major editor of the vehicular cycling entry in Wikipedia (see my signature). Others have edited and contributed.

If there is some other definition of vc, please present it here, or provide a pointer to it. Or at least state clearly what specifically is different about the vc presented by me in these posts, or that presented in the Wiki article, with "the real vc", or whatever you want to call it. Also, please cite my actual words, not an interpretation of my words.

Otherwise, let's put these nonsense assertions to rest and stop wasting so much time and bytes on it.

Thank you.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:06 PM   #2
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
The term "vehicular cycling" describes a method of cycling which the cyclist makes use of the full width of road; asserting his or her space by taking the lane at times and utilizing destination lane positioning prior to intersections.

That's all. Everything else, from sidewalk, door zone, and wrong way riding to lane positioning, merging, and "alpha dog attitude" falls naturally from this description. The rest of the discussion is simply over techniques on how best to "cycle vehicularly," which is based mostly on personal experience and on which reasonable people can disagree without rancor.

We really need to drop all this talk about terminology, philosophy, dogma, insults, causes and politics; and get back to the strength of the concept of vehicular cycling; which is that it is a practical method of cycling in traffic, regardless of the road markings or environment.
Here. Concise, unbiased, correct, and untwisted. It speaks to the strength of the vehicular cycling technique, and it carries no extra political, sociological, or philosophical baggage.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:29 PM   #3
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,583
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Here. Concise, unbiased, correct, and untwisted. It speaks to the strength of the vehicular cycling technique, and it carries no extra political, sociological, or philosophical baggage.
I don't see much difference between Helmet Head's version and Brian Ratliff's. Well, HH's is more fully articulated and he probably has put more time and thought into it. If either could explain any core or fundamental differences, I'd appreciate it. But if you start arguing about trivial **** I'll just leave you to it.
You both tend to get carried away about the politics, but you actually agree on about 99.9 % of the stuff. That's what gets a little tedious: trying to follow the arguments over such fine distinctions. Reformation versus counter-reformation versus counter-counter Reformation. Whatever.

It seems that bike lanes are the major point of contention (and definitely not a trivial point). But VC as a riding method must approach bike lanes as a reality. They exist, and we have to ride on them or around them, or whatever. The political issue, "Should bike lanes be extended or removed?" Is really a separate topic from "How should we ride our bikes in traffic?" I thought that had been decided, but apparently the ghost of bike lanes still haunts all VC discussions! Again, I really fail to distinguish the bones of dissention that remain, and I'm beginning to doubt that anybody will ever explain it in terms that are simple enough for me to understand.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:29 PM   #4
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Brian: And how is that any different from what I have been promoting/advocating? Again, please use my actual words (including words from the Wiki article) to compare/contrast, not an interpretation of my words.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:34 PM   #5
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
I don't see much difference between Helmet Head's version and Brian Ratliff's. Well, HH's is more fully articulated and he probably has put more time and thought into it. If either could explain any core or fundamental differences, I'd appreciate it. But if you start arguing about trivial **** I'll just leave you to it.
You both tend to get carried away about the politics, but you actually agree on about 99.9 % of the stuff. That's what gets a little tedious: trying to follow the arguments over such fine distinctions. Reformation versus counter-reformation versus counter-counter Reformation. Whatever.

It seems that bike lanes are the major point of contention (and definitely not a trivial point). But VC as a riding method must approach bike lanes as a reality. They exist, and we have to ride on them or around them, or whatever. The political issue, "Should bike lanes be extended or removed?" Is really a separate topic from "How should we ride our bikes in traffic?" I thought that had been decided, but apparently the ghost of bike lanes still haunts all VC discussions! Again, I really fail to distinguish the bones of dissention that remain, and I'm beginning to doubt that anybody will ever explain it in terms that are simple enough for me to understand.
Exactly. And, yet, they make assertions as if "my version" is somehow significantly different from some other mystical version of vc, without ever stating how that is.

I'm tired of it. It's time to state once and for all what the significant differences are, or stop asserting that there are any, admit that there are none, and move on already.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:45 PM   #6
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VC™ is all yours. Enjoy.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 02:51 PM   #7
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I'm tired of it.
Victory is yours. I concede.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 03:34 PM   #8
Brad M
nub
 
Brad M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Hammer, Ontario
Bikes:
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wikipedia is bad. Whoever takes that thing for fact must be ********.
Brad M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:05 PM   #9
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Well the two things that stand out in my mind are the DCBLLP or what ever it was and the comments you made about bumping stop signs.

Beyond that, anything that advocates violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action is not vc.

Your whole anti bike lane attitude is not vc... and you have even stated that using bike lanes is not anti-vc.

Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:27 PM   #10
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.
I agree that ADA is not vc, but I don't think vc must work for eveyrone on any road. Just as newbie drivers shouldn't start driving on arterials without more residential road experience, I don't think newbie cyclist should be expected to ride (vc or not) on arterials without some other experience under their belt.

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:36 PM   #11
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad M
Wikipedia is bad. Whoever takes that thing for fact must be ********.
The fact that you can't take Wikipedia for fact does not make it bad.
The fact that I can't take your posts, or anyone's posts, for fact, does not make them bad either.
Some Wikipedia articles are persuasive, some are not.
Some posts here are persuasive, some are not.

But it's all good.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:37 PM   #12
Brad M
nub
 
Brad M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Hammer, Ontario
Bikes:
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam
I agree that ADA is not vc, but I don't think vc must work for eveyrone on any road. Just as newbie drivers shouldn't start driving on arterials without more residential road experience, I don't think newbie cyclist should be expected to ride (vc or not) on arterials without some other experience under their belt.

Al
The arterials are usually the only way to get from A to B. What do they do then? My small city is split east/west by a freeway (typical) with only two fast one-way bridges crossing it. Luckily there is a two-way bike lane across one of them. It's not perfect, but it's a start.



Oh and back on topic, who can forget the pack-o-roadies as one vehicle argument a while back. I seem to recall that being VC™ too.
Brad M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:41 PM   #13
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad M
The arterials are usually the only way to get from A to B. What do they do then? My small city is split east/west by a freeway (typical) with only two fast one-way bridges crossing it. Luckily there is a two-way bike lane across one of them. It's not perfect, but it's a start.
That describes where I live. Until I gained the skills, experience and confidence to ride on heavily used arterials, I used the bike for recreational rides, running errands and took the bus to work. I re-learned cycling after not riding for over 20yrs and it took me about 6mo. before I was ready to cycle the commute to work. It would have been irresponsible of me to try these arterials during rush hour even if they had perfect bike lanes.

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:44 PM   #14
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Or at least state clearly what specifically is different about the vc presented by me in these posts, or that presented in the Wiki article, with "the real vc", or whatever you want to call it.
Well the two things that stand out in my mind are the DCBLLP or what ever it was and the comments you made about bumping stop signs.

Beyond that, anything that advocates violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action is not vc.

Your whole anti bike lane attitude is not vc... and you have even stated that using bike lanes is not anti-vc.

Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.
You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 04:47 PM   #15
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad M
Oh and back on topic, who can forget the pack-o-roadies as one vehicle argument a while back. I seem to recall that being VC™ too.
Your recollection is faulty. I only raised the question of whether a pack of cyclists acting as a single vehicle behaves consistent with VC. I never presented it as being a part of VC, as is supported by the fact that this issue is not addressed in the Wiki article, and never has been.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 05:23 PM   #16
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Actually, I think HH and I agree about more than we disagree about. However, that is not to say I believe there are no other cycling techniques out there that may be effective for a given area.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 05:35 PM   #17
brokenrobot
Sweetened with Splenda
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Brooklyn, Alabama
Bikes: Too many 80s roadbikes!
Posts: 2,335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head

Otherwise, let's put these nonsense assertions to rest and stop wasting so much time and bytes on it.
And let's begin the process of reducing time-wasting by starting YET MORE USELESS THREADS about our own behavior.
brokenrobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 05:49 PM   #18
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Helmet Heads assertions in just the last 24 hours have been doozys!!!

"Bad drivers can be herded"

"If I don't have a mirror, I don't take the lane as much, but still use traffic approaching from behind as my reference point for lane positioning on high speed roadways"

"when faced with an 8 foot wide bike lane, with 8 feet of parked cars to the right, take the travel lane because of traffic approaching from behind on a little travelled, slow speed roadway."

There's plenty more gaffes in the last 24 hours, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go over helmet heads' illogical absurdities over and over again....

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-18-06 at 06:31 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 06:00 PM   #19
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
Actually, I think HH and I agree about more than we disagree about. However, that is not to say I believe there are no other cycling techniques out there that may be effective for a given area.
I agree. The only area of disagreement I've been able to discern is whether VC includes cyclists having to obey the part of the traffic law that recognizes a distrinction between cyclists and drivers of other slow vehicles, and treats them differently.

(note the extra effort expended in saying the above without using baggage-laden terms like segregation and discrimination).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 06:24 PM   #20
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.
I am not the only one "confused," go back and look at the thread called "
Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?"

You will see several replies from folks that have read your vc messages interspersed with your other "concepts" and could not separate the two.

And specifically in the opening post you stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HH
It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's vc.
I am pretty sure that is not out of context nor misquoted. But just in case, the thread is here:
Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 06:39 PM   #21
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's vc.
So stating that constitutes "advocating violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action"?

Don't you think that's something of a stretch?

Stating that it's consistent with vc to stop, or roll (in that particular situation) -- which is what I basically said -- is not necessarily advocating one or the other.

If I simply point out that "hanging 10" is a surfing technique, am I necessarily advocating hanging 10?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 06:48 PM   #22
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.
How about Center Lane Biasing (case insensitive) being presented as VC (case insensitive). Or if you don't like those exact words, can you prove you have never said anything remotely similar to "the center lane as a default position is VC" (case insensitive)? Or can you prove that you have never linked or implied a link between center lane biasing or center lane as the default position and vc (case insensitive) by mentioning center lane biasing or center lane as the default position only in posts or threads that weren't discussing vc (case insensitive)?

Sheesh I almost sound like a lawyer.

In fact, Serge, you have to take the body of your work as a whole and not the exact words used in post number xyz. The whole of your body of work here links vc, center lane biasing, mirrors and anti-bike lane arguments all as one and the same. And lately you can add treating the laws as suggestions to follow only when convenient.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 07:06 PM   #23
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
In fact, Serge, you have to take the body of your work as a whole and not the exact words used in post number xyz. The whole of your body of work here links vc, center lane biasing, mirrors and anti-bike lane arguments all as one and the same. And lately you can add treating the laws as suggestions to follow only when convenient.
+10
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 07:15 PM   #24
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
So stating that constitutes "advocating violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action"?

Don't you think that's something of a stretch?

Stating that it's consistent with vc to stop, or roll (in that particular situation) -- which is what I basically said -- is not necessarily advocating one or the other.

If I simply point out that "hanging 10" is a surfing technique, am I necessarily advocating hanging 10?
Something of a stretch... heck no, which is why I argued against it on that thread... I thought you were promoting vc as violating laws, and I stated just that... even though as a practice I often do just that. That does not make it right... but the way you stated it, it was "gospel."

Remember you have made yourself the unequivocal "VC expert" here... therefore your words tend to carry the weight of the expertise you profess.

You want to be a cyclist with an idea... well that is different... but that is not the tack you took.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-06, 07:20 PM   #25
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
There's plenty more gaffes in the last 24 hours, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go over helmet heads' illogical absurdities over and over again....
Especially when a couple of the VC™ jesters believe in the loony logic of Planet Serge that going over those gaffes and illogical absurdities adds credence to them.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:07 AM.