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


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-27-07, 03:05 PM   #51
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
who says cycling is increasing faster than motoring? that is not anyone's claim.

worldwide, efforts are underway to INCREASE bicycling as transportation. bike infrastructure works to increase bicycling in communities.

how ol' mossy can attempt to skew it otherwise really is astounding in its' blind denial.

maybe Johns' POV and talk at Google should have been titled
"John F's marginalization of bicycling transportation"

or "efforts to ****** american bicycling"
Ah, so any increase justifies your efforts? Why? I think it a far better thing to improve the quality of cyclists' behavior and cyclists' status in society, along with the reduction in car-bike collisions that such changes would likely produce, than it is to create an infrastructure that is based on the opposite policies just because ignorant people such as yourself have a superstitious belief in its value.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 03:20 PM   #52
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
mossy, you honestly think something you purport happened in 1940 actually has some impact on 21st century american redesign of public rights of way with cyclists in mind as road users?
Well, yes, history carries itself along from past to present. Those who do not know the past will suffer from the same problems time after time.

I repeat what you should know, but evidently refuse to believe. By 1940, American society thought of cyclists as road users inferior to motorists, allowed to use the roads only to the extent that motorists allowed them, and incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. Starting in 1970, political conditions enabled motorists to institutionalize those attitudes in the form of bikeways. These are historical facts, bekologist.

Today, bekologist, you are demanding the same facilities that motorists designed 35 years ago to keep you and yours out of motorists' way, and justified on the basis that you and yours are incompetent road users. Don't you find that demeaning and patronizing? Wouldn't you rather stand up on your own feet for your rightful place among road users? If you and yours did so, we might well get the improvements in roads that we deserve. Instead of which, you and yours advocate a program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, to the harm of all cyclists.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 03:27 PM   #53
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
not to mention the fact that VC has done such a stellar job of getting large numbers of all kinds of people out there on roadways, riding vehicularly! I suggest mass hypnosis to try and exorcize the demons of inferiority from the public's minds.
Well, yes, rando, you are one very active part of the reasons why so few Americans cycle, with your constant refrain that cyclists are so inferior to motorists that they have to have special protection, in other words be shoved aside so that motorists "won't run over them", or some such, and that good old average Americans are too dumb to be able to learn how to ride in the safe and effective manner. That's what's wrong with American bicycle transportation, far too many who oppose safe and effective cycling, not those vehicular cyclists who are trying to put things right against the effort of the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 04:15 PM   #54
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)


put things right against the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates?

hilarious, mossy. your denial about the efficacy of bike infrastructure runs deep.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 04:54 PM   #55
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist


put things right against the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates?

hilarious, mossy. your denial about the efficacy of bike infrastructure runs deep.
Bekologist, neither you nor your associates have demonstrated a system that provides just as short travel times with lower accident rate than does vehicular cycling on good roads. You keep repeating the assertion that something provides better service, but you have never been able to show it to us.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 06:05 PM   #56
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Put up or shut up.
Very diplomatic of you.

I could say the same. Your move...

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 06:39 PM   #57
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)
If most people reject vehicular cycling on non-accommodated roadways without even trying it, how does promoting vehicular cycling and non-accommodated roadways do anything for bicycling?

Nobody thinks vehicular cycling is wrong, but if nobody will be the first one in their town to give it a whirl, and if those who do decide to give it a whirl find they are punished by motorists for their efforts, what good does it do all by itself?
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 06:45 PM   #58
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)
what mossy is prattling on about like a broken record, I've no idea. claims bike infrastructure provides faster travel times than road cycling is a strawman argument and one no bike infrastructure advocate is endorsing.

bike infrastructure in communities can be used by vehicular cyclists. bike infrastructure built on public roads increases on-road cycling, encourages more visible road position than wide lanes, and decreases the indexed crash rate for bicyclists.

ask bonafide traffic engineers about bike infrastructure, and the consensus is 'build it, and they will ride.'

this is not an empty platitude nor is it unproven.

bike commuting rates are on the rise in cities, around the world, that support bicycling as transportation via bike infrastructure. mossy claims there's nothing better than the american auto-centric status quo, and just about every bike advocacy organization disagrees with him.

anyway, a vehicular cyclist can use bike infrastructure. it should be no big deal to mossy if cities in the US or around the world are increasing bike transportation rates thru the use of bike infrastructure.

like I said earlier, mossy's talk to google should have been titled something like "john f's skewed attempts to minimize bicycle transportation"

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-27-07 at 09:50 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-07, 06:58 PM   #59
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
While there is a lot of benefit in empowering the individual to keep on truck’n as it were. It does seem that this “I’m only going to deal with the half of the problem I can control.” has evolved to “there is no other half to this problem,” or at best “there is nothing we can do about the other half.” and that is a shame.
Continuing to operate as though cyclists are inferior road users will only continue to erode cyclists' rights to use the roadways as vehicle drivers. Cycling as if you are not inferior, and ignoring the current trend for motorists to consider to cyclists as inferior, is a lot more practical than accepting that cyclists are inferior and operating as such, that is, if you feel that your rights to the road are important.
My reference to the other half meant non-cyclists or specifically motorist. The notion that motorists do not need to know where a cyclist needs to ride both legally and safely is extremely detrimental to the welfare of society and treats cyclists as inferior to other road users. Maintaining that motorists are allowed to assault cyclists without repercussions treats cyclists as inferior. And I can go on.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 07:41 AM   #60
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
If most people reject vehicular cycling on non-accommodated roadways without even trying it, how does promoting vehicular cycling and non-accommodated roadways do anything for bicycling?

Nobody thinks vehicular cycling is wrong, but if nobody will be the first one in their town to give it a whirl, and if those who do decide to give it a whirl find they are punished by motorists for their efforts, what good does it do all by itself?
Punished by motorists for cycling properly? If cycling properly caused motorists to punish cyclists I would have been punished frequently throughout my life. Doesn't happen.This is one more bogus argument justifying the cyclist-inferiority (and in your case it really does seem to be a phobia).

We need to fight the cyclist-inferiority policy, rather than bow down to it.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 07:49 AM   #61
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
what mossy is prattling on about like a broken record, I've no idea. claims bike infrastructure provides faster travel times than road cycling is a strawman argument and one no bike infrastructure advocate is endorsing.

bike infrastructure in communities can be used by vehicular cyclists. bike infrastructure built on public roads increases on-road cycling, encourages more visible road position than wide lanes, and decreases the indexed crash rate for bicyclists.

ask bonafide traffic engineers about bike infrastructure, and the consensus is 'build it, and they will ride.'

this is not an empty platitude nor is it unproven.

bike commuting rates are on the rise in cities, around the world, that support bicycling as transportation via bike infrastructure. mossy claims there's nothing better than the american auto-centric status quo, and just about every bike advocacy organization disagrees with him.

anyway, a vehicular cyclist can use bike infrastructure. it should be no big deal to mossy if cities in the US or around the world are increasing bike transportation rates thru the use of bike infrastructure.

like I said earlier, mossy's talk to google should have been titled something like "john f's skewed attempts to minimize bicycle transportation"
Can't read, can you? I asked whether there was any bikeways system that provided trip times as short as normal riding on the road. In general, using bikeways increases travel time.

Your argument is that bikeways appeal to people who do not know how to ride safely. I agree that that is the effect, and I think that that is a bad effect. That is a bad effect in two ways. It does what you argue, puts people on the road without the skills to ride safely, by making them feel that the bikeways protect them. And, therefore, it discourages learning of safe cycling practice. It cannot do anything else, because these unknowing people have been persuaded that bikeways make cycling safe.

Better for society to acknowledge that riding safely is the best way to operate, and to encourage that rather than discouraging it.

And you, bekologist, are applying yourself to doing this harm to the cycling population.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 08:09 AM   #62
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,960
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 844 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Well, yes, history carries itself along from past to present. Those who do not know the past will suffer from the same problems time after time.

I repeat what you should know, but evidently refuse to believe. By 1940, American society thought of cyclists as road users inferior to motorists, allowed to use the roads only to the extent that motorists allowed them, and incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. Starting in 1970, political conditions enabled motorists to institutionalize those attitudes in the form of bikeways. These are historical facts, bekologist.

Today, bekologist, you are demanding the same facilities that motorists designed 35 years ago to keep you and yours out of motorists' way, and justified on the basis that you and yours are incompetent road users. Don't you find that demeaning and patronizing? Wouldn't you rather stand up on your own feet for your rightful place among road users? If you and yours did so, we might well get the improvements in roads that we deserve. Instead of which, you and yours advocate a program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, to the harm of all cyclists.
John if historical precedent meant anything in this regard, cycling in a vehicular manner, as it was done when cyclists first demanded the paving of roads, should have carried over until now. But in fact the auto and the system of auto superiority based design has overshadowed the past, displacing the vehicular system by cyclists that was in wide use.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 08:40 AM   #63
bsut
just a commuter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saratoga CA
Bikes: 1999 Specialized Allez Elite Triple, 197? Melton Tandem, 1972 Oxford 24" unicycle, 1973 Oxford 20" giraffe unicycle, lots of others in the family fleet
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Exclamation

This thread has gone off along the usual tangents. I hoped the video would provide new fodder and new insight for discussion. (Some people learn better from the spoken word than from the written word.) Please take one hour to view and listen to the presentation and the Q&A that followed, then use this thread to further clarify those particular issues.

If you haven't invested a few hours to study the VC literature, and you haven't even invested one hour on the video of Forester's recent public presentation of his ideas, then you're arguing here against a caricature of the man and the concepts.
bsut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 08:50 AM   #64
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)
john, your misleading diatribe is transparent.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 09:01 AM   #65
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
John if historical precedent meant anything in this regard, cycling in a vehicular manner, as it was done when cyclists first demanded the paving of roads, should have carried over until now. But in fact the auto and the system of auto superiority based design has overshadowed the past, displacing the vehicular system by cyclists that was in wide use.
That is a reasonably accurate statement. The motorist superiority system devised the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. That is exactly why I am encouraging you bicycle activists that you should be fighting the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority system of bikeways and standing up for your rights and safety as drivers of vehicles, instead of accepting the status that motorists assign to you.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 09:08 AM   #66
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)
more quixotic ludicrous rantings. john, accomodating bikes on public rights of way with bike infrastructure has nothing to do with motorist superiority. bike infrastructure is about moving more bikes in public space and encouraging bicycling. why you even continue to beat that broken drum is pathetic.

Bollocks to your skewed assertions that people have to be trained, lawful bicyclists to use public space. THAT foresterism is a reflection of the motorist superiority complex.


sending up tired, weak smoke screens about bike infrastructure really erodes what little credibility you retain.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 09:26 AM   #67
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist

Bollocks to your skewed assertions that people have to be trained, lawful bicyclists to use public space. THAT foresterism is a reflection of the motorist superiority complex.
Bicycle advocates such as yourself are some of the nastiest people I have ever had discussions with. Advocating that people should use the roads without any knowledge of how to do so safely is one of the nastiest proposals I have seen, all for the cause of anti-motoring.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 09:27 AM   #68
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
That is a reasonably accurate statement. The motorist superiority system devised the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. That is exactly why I am encouraging you bicycle activists that you should be fighting the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority system of bikeways and standing up for your rights and safety as drivers of vehicles, instead of accepting the status that motorists assign to you.
'Bikeways' were proposed, designed, and heavily used long before automobiles became popular. For instance, the very popular Coney Island path which opened in 1895. Also, the Pasadena-L.A. elevated bikeway, which was never entirely completed, because one railway refused to let it cross over their tracks. Auto-culture did not spawn these and other bikeways, quite the opposite; this project was abandoned when the automobile came on the scene.

Robert
RobertHurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 10:27 AM   #69
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: 24,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsut
This thread has gone off along the usual tangents. I hoped the video would provide new fodder and new insight for discussion.
What was the new fodder or insight? It was the same old, same old, from John Foreter.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 10:37 AM   #70
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
'Bikeways' were proposed, designed, and heavily used long before automobiles became popular. For instance, the very popular Coney Island path which opened in 1895. Also, the Pasadena-L.A. elevated bikeway, which was never entirely completed, because one railway refused to let it cross over their tracks. Auto-culture did not spawn these and other bikeways, quite the opposite; this project was abandoned when the automobile came on the scene.

Robert
More lying, that's what it is, lying, to support opposition to vehicular cycling. Whatever they were called, the bicycle paths laid out before the automobile ere, were not bikeways as were started about 1970.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 10:44 AM   #71
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy john
Lies, all lies!


quixotic rants.

john, your credibility is eroding rapidly here.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 12:55 PM   #72
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Well, yes, rando, you are one very active part of the reasons why so few Americans cycle, with your constant refrain that cyclists are so inferior to motorists that they have to have special protection, in other words be shoved aside so that motorists "won't run over them", or some such, and that good old average Americans are too dumb to be able to learn how to ride in the safe and effective manner. That's what's wrong with American bicycle transportation, far too many who oppose safe and effective cycling, not those vehicular cyclists who are trying to put things right against the effort of the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates.
I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.

Last edited by rando; 05-28-07 at 01:03 PM.
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 01:39 PM   #73
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.
Rando, I suspect John is beginning to feel like he's being attacked from multiple directions, which he is. Given the atmosphere of a lot of the posts recently, I can understand a bit of misinterpretation on his and others parts.
This parts not directed at you Rando, but just some general observations on my part:
Just a proposal to all, and no,I'm not a moderator before anyone says that:

Let's think about dropping names like "Mossy John" and other forms of attack. I enjoy debate, but namecalling and personal attacks have no place on a debate and that's what this really is.

All of you, including John, make various valid points and maybe trying to arrive at a consensus instead of ripping each other apart might serve advocacy better.

Just my opinion, of course and you can all accept it or ignore it at your leisure.
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 02:02 PM   #74
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the main difference is that most bike facilites advocates also advocate for/use VC as well but some of the VCers will not accept even the possibility that the existence of bike lanes might be good for cyclists. That's what I'm getting.... If I'm wrong, please tell me so!
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-07, 02:04 PM   #75
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.
Why advance the irrelevant fact that bicycles are lighter, smaller, and slower than most other vehicles on the road, unless you thought it to be relevant. I repeat the substance of what I wrote earlier. That is, that these irrelevant facts have been advanced for decades as demonstrating that cyclists need to act in the inferior manner. I see little other reason for you to introduce them into this discussion.

There is considerable relevance to the twin characteristics of narrowness and slowness, because one assists in ameliorating the other, but that was not the context of your words and, note, you introduced weight, which is completely irrelevant even in the relevant discussion.
John Forester 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 12:50 AM.