Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2009, 01:39 AM   #351
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
That is like saying, "No fruit stand could survive without bringing you to trial for a common law offense." The landowner is paying the security firm to guard his person and property, not execute arrest warrants against him on behalf of some private court he never heard of. Such disservice to clients would indicate a ridiculous conflict of interest that the free market would soon resolve.
Security firms that don't co-operate with other security firms to bring common law violations will only have one mode of defense: Violence. Firms that try this will go broke etc. etc. we've been through this many times.

Quote:
By jurisdiction I mean the right and power to interpret and apply the law.
The free market decides who gets "jurisdiction" to decide cases because those are the courts that have proven the ability to get both sides of a dispute to submit to their ruling, presumably because they are the fairest.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 01:57 AM   #352
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Security firms that don't co-operate with other security firms to bring common law violations will only have one mode of defense: Violence.
No, violence and/or trial in an affiliated private court, just like any security firm. Also, this is not about "security firms that don't co-operate with other security firms." There is only one instance of non-cooperation here: between the landowner's security firm and a private court that thinks it has a say in what he does on his own land.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:06 AM   #353
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
No, violence and/or trial in an affiliated private court, just like any security firm. Also, this is not about "security firms that don't co-operate with other security firms." There is only one instance of non-cooperation here: between the landowner's security firm and a private court that thinks it has a say in what he does on his own land.
No, private courts don't get to decide anything unless BOTH SIDES AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE COURTS DECISION via pre-trial contract. The court itself has no teeth without the security firms. And it IS about the secuity firms since they are the ones that negotiate and agree on which court's ruling to abide by.

The victim's security firm will NEVER agree to the landowner's aquittals R us court. It will have to be an unbiased court for both sides to agree to it.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:14 AM   #354
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
No, private courts don't get to decide anything unless BOTH SIDES AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE COURTS DECISION via pre-trial contract. The court itself has no teeth without the security firms. And it IS about the secuity firms since they are the ones that negotiate and agree on which court's ruling to abide by.
The landowner hired a security firm that is affiliated with a private court in COMPETITION with the one issuing a warrant against him, so naturally the security firm will act COMPETITIVELY and not abduct its client and hand him over to a COMPETITOR.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:53 AM   #355
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The landowner hired a security firm that is affiliated with a private court in COMPETITION with the one issuing a warrant against him, so naturally the security firm will act COMPETITIVELY and not abduct its client and hand him over to a COMPETITOR.
Once more from the top.

The courts don't enforce their rulings. That is not the job of the courts. The security firms enforce the rulings. So in order to have a non-violent solution to a dispute, both security firms (victim and criminal) will have to make a contract beforehand to abide by the ruling of the court.

In your scenario, the criminals security firm will only agree on acquittals are us. This is the SAME as refusing to go to court at all in the view of the victims security firm. Therefore, the victims security firm will be forced to enact violent force in an attempt to apprehend the criminal and bring him to justice as it is moral to defend yourself from aggression.

Now, the security firm that has to go to war every time their client commits a crime will quickly go out of business since it is not a viable business model.

ALSO, since that security firm will not play ball with others, when a crime is committed against one of its members, the other security firms won't play ball with them leaving their clients UNPROTECTED. Again, the only defense now for them is armed conflict and that is very expensive. How can you trust a contract made with somebody from one of those security firms? You can't. So they won't be able to do even the simplest business.

ALSO, the clients of these security firms that refuse to co-operate will be ostracized from society because you won't be able to trust constant violaters of common law.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 03:14 AM   #356
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubeskies View Post
Once more from the top.

The courts don't enforce their rulings. That is not the job of the courts. The security firms enforce the rulings. So in order to have a non-violent solution to a dispute, both security firms (victim and criminal)
Victim and accused.

Quote:
will have to make a contract beforehand to abide by the ruling of the court.

In your scenario, the criminals security firm will only agree on acquittals are us. This is the SAME as refusing to go to court at all in the view of the victims security firm. Therefore, the victims security firm will be forced to enact violent force in an attempt to apprehend the criminal and bring him to justice as it is moral to defend yourself from aggression.
And the security firm of the (presumed innocent) accused will then react with violent force in an attempt to protect their client from the competition, because it is moral to defend yourself from aggression.

Quote:
Now, the security firm that has to go to war every time their client commits a crime will quickly go out of business since it is not a viable business model.
A security firm would obviously not go to war every or even most of the time, only against those trying to enforce a warrant issued by an unrecognized court in competition with its own affiliated courts.

Quote:
ALSO, since that security firm will not play ball with others, when a crime is committed against one of its members, the other security firms won't play ball with them leaving their clients UNPROTECTED.
They will play ball with others, just not representatives of competing courts.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 03:22 AM   #357
vixticator
clutch
 
vixticator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Watch the throne
Posts: 117,345
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Victim and accused
Yeah, I dunno why this keeps getting ignored.
vixticator is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 08:23 AM   #358
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

2 words: preexisting agreements
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 10:04 AM   #359
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I think this has been explained already at least twice. Please make a new thread or something if you don't get it after this. It would be nice to talk about the book and not rehash this. Of course "criminal" means "accused criminal" at some point too. That is the person who is having a claim brought against them by another individual.

When I refer to a security firm, I generally mean personal protection or internal security similar to bodyguards, police, or mall cops. A justice firm would be one who arbitrates cases brought to it by individuals. A defense or military firm, offering protection from external states, or even prison firms could all be separate entities. A company may have security and justice functions, but it is not necessary that the criminal be tried within the same company.

Whether the accused is physically detained by the claimant or not, there is an impetus to both sides to find a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. It is not required for a third party to be involved, whether an agreement on restitution can be reached or not.

At one extreme you may have a high school kid caught stealing a $1 candy bar from the corner shop. The costs of capture and terror premium are probably very small, and the shop owner offers to let the kid return the candy bar and come the next day to sweep the alley to make it up to him. If this is done, case closed, but if not the owner would be in the right to get security/justice firms involved and seek full restitution.

You can't just refuse to agree on an arbitrator, or demand your own Acquittals Inc. and get away with anything you want though. In cases like this the claimant may decide to force you to use the arbitrator he chooses, but should be careful in doing so. In almost all cases they would record the accused refusing to agree to any arbitrator, so there is no chance later for the criminal to say, "they just punished me without giving me a chance for a fair trial". I suspect that a fair number of justice institutions would evolve for cases like this. They may be non-profit but more importantly, they would not have ties to the private firms of the 2 parties.

Whether you use a security firm or not, you can seek to "make yourself whole" without the consent of the accused, or any mutual agreement. It just puts yourself at risk to later arbitration finding you at fault as well if you don't proceed correctly. Say Jim is out back feeding his chickens. He sees Dave pop open his gate and lead a cow out, down the road to his own farm. Jim calls him up later, but Dave denies it happened at all. Jim could later go and rightfully sneak 2 cows from Dave's farm. Maybe he also takes a third as the cost of capture and TP.

This could go on and on between the two, but it starts to get expensive when you are paying for security firms to get involved. These firms have a profit motive greater than just serving one customer with whatever nonsense interpretation of law the guy wants to believe in. Of course Hitler will claim at his trial that he was well-intentioned, robbing and murdering Jews as an agent of the democratic majority. There has to be some economic force behind bringing Hitler to trial, like a large group of people who want to live in a society that doesn't condone robbery, torture and genocide.

The idea that firms will not cooperate in most instances is flawed. Military adventures stealing cattle back and forth are expensive for farmers. There is no state to expropriate the costs of stealing cattle by taxing the whole farming valley. The way justice firms will compete is by developing a reputation for being fair and providing the service most profitably.

Two security and justice conglomerates, Acme and Barrow, may reach an agreement to hold trials through Chesapeake's justice system. Chesapeake and Barrow's clients may have already likewise agreed to Acme as arbitrators when these two companies are used by claimants. There could be contingencies for Zephyr Charitable Independent Justice Inc. handling cases where customers of Chesapeake and Acme refuse to use Barrow.

Acme and Chesapeake want to keep customers happy to retain them. Thus, they should work with both parties to find an agreeable arbitrator. They may simply pass along the case to Barrow or Zephyr in return for a sort of small commission for the lead. Barrow wants to retain its cases from Acme and Chesapeake, so it has the impetus to conform to common law and treat their customers fairly, i.e. not become like Statist Acquittals Inc.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 10:32 AM   #360
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I want to touch on the terror premium (TP) that I keep mentioning, because it is related to the question of dealing with "the gangster" or career criminal, as an option against ostracizing to keep society safe.

Block, Rothbard, and other writers refer to libertarian proportionality as "two teeth for a tooth." As I explained, just paying back the shop owner the $1 candy bar isn't consistent with the theory that initiating aggression is wrong. It is possible for no property to be damaged and a crime be committed. Block explains:

Quote:
But this is only the beginning of the attempt to turn the future back into the sort of place it would have been had the theft not occurred in the first place, the ultimate (and of course impossible) goal of libertarian justice. For so far we have ignored the costs of searching for the criminal, capturing him, trying him, etc. These, too, must be taken into account, apart from the rare exception where the guilt struck criminal turns himself in to the authorities immediately, with a full confession. But even here there is the fourth dimension of crime to be considered. For when I entered your home, in order to steal your TV, you didn't know what I was capable of, or intended. In short, I scared you half to death, in addition to making off with your valuable property. Where is the compensation, the "making whole" for that bit of wickedness? In contrast, when I am punished under the rule of law, there is no such risk. That is, punishment is clear and foreseeable.

In order to make good this imbalance, the libertarian code of justice requires that the perpetrator pay for the fear he imposed upon his victim, in addition to the more objective costs. To this end, all criminals shall be forced to play a game of Russian roulette, with the number of bullets and the total number of chambers to be determined by the severity threat he imposed on his victim. For example, for a relatively minor crime of TV theft, when the owner was not home and the criminal unarmed, with no record of past violence, there might be 1,000 chambers and only one bullet. But, with the victim at home, who is tied up, an armed criminal, a violent background, etc. -- as the risk increases, so does the punishment -- the number of bullets increases and the number of chambers decreases.

So far, we have not mentioned the criterion of crime prevention. That is because the libertarian is not a utilitarian theory of punishment, designed to limit future crime. Rather, it is totally backward looking, to the past crime itself. It asks only what is the requirement of justice for that particular rights violation. However, as can be seen, the freedom philosophy implies a far more Draconian approach to crime than most. Crime prevention thus enters the libertarian equation not directly but indirectly. We do not ratchet up the penalties until the optimal rate of crime is reached. Rather, we allow the "punishment to fit the crime," and consider such benefits as ******ation of future criminality to be much beside the point of justice. As long as justice is done, the future will likely take care of itself.

To whom is the penalty for crime owed? It is to the victim, not to "society" or to the state, or to the office of the attorney general, or to any other such entity. As such, the victim is free to forgive the perpetrator for the crime, or to charge a mutually agreeable monetary fee in lieu of imposing any part of it. For example, the criminal may escape having to play Russian roulette by paying off the victim.

What of the crime of murder? Although this may be more complicated from the libertarian point of view, the very same model, of theft, is employed. What, then, did the murderer steal? Why, he stole a life, of course. Applying the two teeth for a tooth model, then, we arrive at the conclusion that the first tooth would be to transfer the life the murderer stole from the victim, back from him and into the body of the dead victim.

At this point, no doubt, the detractor will criticize that there is simply no way to transfer a life from the body of the live murderer into that of the dead victim. There are several ways to deal with this spurious objection. First, we are here staking out the requirements of justice. The mere state of reality at any given epoch is of no moment whatsoever; justice is timeless. Second, we can posit a machine that can do just that task. Perhaps, in 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years science will arrive at this point. Then, for the concrete bound, there will be a way of actually attaining full justice, as opposed to merely sketching out its contours, as at present. However, this machine, whether or not it ever comes into being, can already play an important role as heuristic device. For with its aid we can now see that the life of the murderer is forfeit. Plain and simple, he took a life; he owes a life. Whether or not this can be transferred to the dead body of the victim, the murderer is no longer the appropriate owner of his own life. If it cannot be transferred to the dead victim, at least it can be given over to his heirs, to do with as they wish. Perhaps they can enslave him for life. Or hang him publicly, charging admission for the spectacle. Whatever.

Of course, with this machine, the case is more direct, at least for the first tooth. However, we need the further assumption that man is like the cat in having nine lives in order for the full panoply of libertarian justice to come into its own. Then, we take one life from the murderer in order to return it to the dead victim, as before. We take a second life from him in order that what he did to another be done to him. We still charge him for the costs of capture, we may conceivably worth a third life, and we certainly force him to play Russian roulette with as many bullets as there are chambers, which yields, for sure, a fourth life. Call it 3 and a half for one; no matter the exact number, it is a reasonably steep price.

This analysis also sheds light on so called mitigating circumstances such as accident, mental handicap, extreme youth of the perpetrator. We can now more clearly see that these are the merest of excuses to evade justice. The difficulty is that the focus is placed almost entirely on the killer. What of the victim? With the latter in the picture (whether through courtesy of the life transfer machine or of the libertarian concern with the return of stolen property), we can see not one but two people; not only the person who killed by "reason of insanity" or drunkenness, or accident, but also the victim. Given that there is only one life available, but two not merely one candidates for it, which of them is the more deserving of it? Is it the killer, who is at least somewhat responsible, or the victim, who is totally innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever? To ask this is to answer it. Consider, even, the two-month old baby who somehow finds a pistol in his crib, pulls the trigger, and kills a passerby. Who should keep the life now under the control of the baby: the infant, or the victim? It is not a matter of blame. The baby, certainly, is not blameworthy; but he did kill someone.
I don't have more time now to explain, but please read and think before jumping to silly conclusions. The subjective matter of the TP is another reason that both sides have to find agreeable solutions.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 10:39 AM   #361
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

In an effort to get us back on topic too, we can start the discussion points:

1. If money grew on trees, would we all be richer?


2. If the rich were poorer, would the poor be richer?


3. Why does liberty bring about prosperity?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:01 AM   #362
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
I want some opinions on this scenario. If someone murders a homeless person who has no protection, what then? Who claims a wrong here?
Well, the absolute WORST case here is that NOBODY does anything about it, in which case, it's basically the same as the status quo.
 
Old 05-03-2009, 11:03 AM   #363
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

WRT killing trespassers: you can only respond with enough force to close the transaction that the other party opened without your consent. Once you use more than that, you're effectively closing one transaction and simultaneously opening another (without consent).
 
Old 05-03-2009, 11:18 AM   #364
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
2 words: preexisting agreements
One word: competition.

Though it's possible for a judicial cartel to exist in theory, the free market would be against it. To the extent one private court recognizes (and their affiliate security firms enforce) the judgements of another, they contribute to the demand for the services of that other private court, and therefore also to its market share, hurting their own business in the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
In an effort to get us back on topic too, we can start the discussion points:

1. If money grew on trees, would we all be richer?
Whoever owns the trees would be.

Quote:
2. If the rich were poorer, would the poor be richer?
If they took their money from the rich, yes (temporarily).

Quote:
3. Why does liberty bring about prosperity?
Entrepreneurship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
WRT killing trespassers: you can only respond with enough force to close the transaction that the other party opened without your consent. Once you use more than that, you're effectively closing one transaction and simultaneously opening another (without consent).
The trespasser consented to the landowner's law, whatever that happens to be, when he voluntarily entered his domain.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:34 AM   #365
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
The trespasser consented to the landowner's law, whatever that happens to be, when he voluntarily entered his domain.
No, that's really not how it works.

Quote:
Though it's possible for a judicial cartel to exist in theory, the free market would be against it. To the extent one private court recognizes (and their affiliate security firms enforce) the judgements of another, they contribute to the demand for the services of that other private court, and therefore also to its market share, hurting their own business in the process.
Do you not agree that a security firm that refuses to cooperate with other security firms and the justice providers would have a hard time adjudicating the claims of their customers? If not, why?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:42 AM   #366
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Do you not agree that a security firm that refuses to cooperate with other security firms and the justice providers would have a hard time adjudicating the claims of their customers? If not, why?
I agree. A security firm that acts competitively toward the judicial cartel will have a hard time succeeding.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:44 AM   #367
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

So why would a company operate in a way that makes them highly likely to fail?
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:56 AM   #368
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

A startup competitor (or anyone else for that matter) could not act against the judicial cartel, so there wouldn't be any such startups. However, assuming free market principles are somehow still able to operate, the inherent divergence of interest within the cartel would make it unstable. As each member finds that he loses business whenever he recognizes the rulings of another, this activity will tend to cease.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:08 PM   #369
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
A startup competitor (or anyone else for that matter) could not act against the judicial cartel, so there wouldn't be any such startups
You need to justify your conclusion.

Quote:
As each member finds that he loses business whenever he recognizes the rulings of another, this activity will tend to cease.
Or, and here's a shocking conclusion, courts will realize that the only way to have a stable business for themselves is to recognize the rulings of the others that have shown themselves to be fair. As long as they continue to show themselves to be fair, they will be recognized. Refusing to accept the rulings of fair courts will cause a tit for tat reaction - probably from ALL other fair courts, rendering their verdicts meaningless - and thus they lose all business.

All that your scenario means is that there's less room in the market for courts than in the scenario where they all disregard each other's verdict, BUT it's the only way to survive at all.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:18 PM   #370
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Fair is what the judicial cartel says it is. Since they have a monopoly on the administration of "justice" (and on the force to back it up), all they have to do is remain consistent with each other, thus locking out any would-be competitor and leaving the general public with no effective recourse.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:20 PM   #371
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

So Strawn, the problem with a free market is people might try to form states?
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:26 PM   #372
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

sigh
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 12:48 PM   #373
Rubeskies
Pooh-Bah
 
Rubeskies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Smooth Conversion
Posts: 5,704
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Fair is what the judicial cartel says it is. Since they have a monopoly on the administration of "justice" (and on the force to back it up), all they have to do is remain consistent with each other, thus locking out any would-be competitor and leaving the general public with no effective recourse.
Strawn,

Would you agree on this definition of cartel?

"It is a formal organization of producers that agree to coordinate prices and production. [1] Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products."

If so,

1.) Please explain why, at the beginning of this process, there wouldn't be a massive rushing to the market of entrepreneurs attempting to enter this very lucrative market creating large numbers of competing firms.

2.) If there are lots of firms, why won't they offer lots of competing services and prices?

There are lots and lots of different levels of coverage for lots of different price ranges. And since this will be a service that a large number of people need, this will be a huge market prompting huge numbers of companies.

The less homogeneous a market, the less likely there will be a cartel. And since there will be lots of different services and prices, this makes it less likely for there to be a cartel.

3.) The only arrangement needed for the firms to co-operate is the agreement to negotiate to use fair trials for common law violations. Just THIS arrangement would not be enough to call it a cartel, correct? The arrangement says nothing about not negotiating with start-ups, right?

4.) If there are tons of companies in the market, it makes it very very difficult to make a formal cartel, right?.

5.) Prisoner's Dilemma. Since there is a financial incentive to offer the best service, and the company that openly deals with all companies that attempt to resolve common law problems peacefully will have by far the best public relations, there will be an incentive for one company to "break the cartel." Once one breaks, the others will follow.
Rubeskies is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:19 PM   #374
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
So Strawn, the problem with a free market is people might try to form states?
The problem with judicial cartels is their striking resemblance to states.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:20 PM   #375
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen View Post
What's your point? Or is the whole article your point?
Strawn is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive