Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2009, 11:12 PM   #576
Zoogs
grinder
 
Zoogs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quite Unsure
Posts: 581
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Yeah, there are bad people in this world.



Which does not excuse him from the legitimate terms of the offer. It should be obvious why any legal system would have to work like that.
So wait. If the seller never put the item up for sale, is the thief now only on hook for the market value?
Zoogs is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 11:24 PM   #577
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoogs View Post
So wait. If the seller never put the item up for sale, is the thief now only on hook for the market value?
Yes, of course. If the property owner has not (verifiably) established terms under which he is willing to part with the item, then the matter has to be adjudicated. Needless to say, once the controversy starts, it's too late for the property owner to do this.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 11:38 PM   #578
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
Again, what does this have to do with voluntarism?

You STILL haven't presented any aspect of this case that presents a challenge unique to a voluntary dispute resolution system.
bump
 
Old 05-07-2009, 01:14 PM   #579
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Rather, it DOES mean: How does an AC court get the power to do this?
Why is the court involved? Did you have insurance on implied-in-fact contracts? Or did you have theft insurance?
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 04:20 PM   #580
vhawk01
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
vhawk01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 31,866
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator View Post
This is what I meant in another thread about how you cannot have a moral system imposed beforehand. In ACland these protection firms would not only defend the "rights" of their clients but compete with other firms to define what a "right" is--what IS a violation. Without a final arbiter in the process it would be constant internal war.

Unrelated... Why can't I buy an island to harbor criminals from these bounty hunters for a free?
"Constant internal war," in this context, sounds pretty awesome to me. But then I'm not a Christian.
vhawk01 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 05:21 PM   #581
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
Again, what does this have to do with voluntarism?
Theft is financially risky where voluntary exchange is honored.

Quote:
You STILL haven't presented any aspect of this case that presents a challenge unique to a voluntary dispute resolution system.
That is not my position. The legalism I am describing could be a good thing, depending on how it's handled. It does not apply now though since the right to voluntarily exchange one's property is not considered absolute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
Why is the court involved? Did you have insurance on implied-in-fact contracts? Or did you have theft insurance?
The property owner has a contract for judicial services in general, not just insurance claims. He is filing suit to collect a debt incurred by the taking of his property under public notice of the terms of his consent to its exchange.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 05:47 PM   #582
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Theft is financially risky where voluntary exchange is honored.
Assuming your conclusion 101.

Quote:
That is not my position. The legalism I am describing could be a good thing, depending on how it's handled. It does not apply now though since the right to voluntarily exchange one's property is not considered absolute.
Neither is the right to keep your property, based on the fact that someone might steal it.

OH NOES SEMANTICS HAVE RUINED EVERYTHING

Quote:
The property owner has a contract for judicial services in general, not just insurance claims. He is filing suit to collect a debt incurred by the taking of his property under public notice of the terms of his consent to its exchange.
He has no god-given right to be made whole, where whole is subject to his personal whims, preferences, etc.

This thread is over IMO.
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:55 PM   #583
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
He has no god-given right to be made whole, where whole is subject to his personal whims, preferences, etc.
Who's talking about personal whims? The plaintiff gave public notice of the conditions (including price) under which he was willing to part with his property, before the defendant took it.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 06:29 PM   #584
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Who's talking about personal whims? The plaintiff gave public notice of the conditions (including price) under which he was willing to part with his property, before the defendant took it.
Quote:
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Anyway, your definition of an implied-in-fact contract isn't the same as the real definition. Theft of an item that has been offered for sale does not constitute such a contract. And why do you care so much about this?
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 06:48 PM   #585
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
Anyway, your definition of an implied-in-fact contract isn't the same as the real definition. Theft of an item that has been offered for sale does not constitute such a contract. And why do you care so much about this?
That's a matter of opinion, and the specific applicability of this term is a secondary consideration anyway. What is essential is that the defendant had no legitimate way to acquire the item except in compliance with the plaintiff's explicitly stated conditions.

If the defendant says he did not acquire the item legitimately, but rather stole it, that could make his liability worse but does not exempt him from compliance with the plaintiff's publicly noticed terms of voluntary exchange.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 07:19 PM   #586
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

You can't just go around making unilateral contracts, even when they involve property that is yours.

If I put my car up for sale for $100,000,000 and then you crash into it and destroy it, do you now owe me $100,000,000?
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 07:38 PM   #587
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
You can't just go around making unilateral contracts, even when they involve property that is yours.
It wasn't unilateral. The defendant gave constructive assent by voluntarily taking the property, since he is legally responsible for abiding by the property owner's terms of exchange.

Quote:
If I put my car up for sale for $100,000,000 and then you crash into it and destroy it, do you now owe me $100,000,000?
Only if I crashed into it voluntarily.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 07:55 PM   #588
Poker879
old hand
 
Poker879's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,388
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Ignoring thoughts of ACism. This brought up a slightly interesting point. What happens in today's world if I sell my chair for $1M and the thief signs a contract, but decides not to actually pay. Am I owed the $1M for my end of the contract or can he renege and just give back the chair and maybe some more money for an inconvenience fee? And what if the amount wasn't $1M, but just something slightly ridiculous like $1k, do the same rules still apply? I guess this is more of a law question and the answer to it should finally answer Strawn's question as well.
Poker879 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:02 PM   #589
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

There is a whole range of answers where the terms of exchange declared by a property owner are not final, but rather subject to coercive intervention by villainous government.

The discussion so far has been in the context of AC, where presumably the right to voluntary exchange is absolute.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 08:53 PM   #590
Poker879
old hand
 
Poker879's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,388
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
There is a whole range of answers where the terms of exchange declared by a property owner are not final, but rather subject to coercive intervention by villainous government.

The discussion so far has been in the context of AC, where presumably the right to voluntary exchange is absolute.
Well as far as I can see, everything I've found says that the buyer owes the full amount, which seems unreasonable, and that is with the state, so I don't see how it gives a different answer in AC. I'm assuming I'm missing something, so why don't you show us the answer for the "whole range of answers" within the state and this will shed some light on the answer in AC.

I see that you're trying to say that it was an implied contract, which it of course wasn't. However if the scenario was more like the one I described it would hilight your question better.
Poker879 is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 09:12 PM   #591
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poker879 View Post
Ignoring thoughts of ACism. This brought up a slightly interesting point. What happens in today's world if I sell my chair for $1M and the thief signs a contract, but decides not to actually pay. Am I owed the $1M for my end of the contract or can he renege and just give back the chair and maybe some more money for an inconvenience fee? And what if the amount wasn't $1M, but just something slightly ridiculous like $1k, do the same rules still apply? I guess this is more of a law question and the answer to it should finally answer Strawn's question as well.
Big difference between signing a contract, and Strawns imaginary implied contract that should be enforced because it was offered.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-07-2009, 10:43 PM   #592
bonsaltron
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bonsaltron's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Buying Drury Out, Bitch...
Posts: 9,370
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post

The seller made a general offer through public notice. Any buyer satisfies his expectation, even someone who earlier seem uninterested.
so if i put a 'FOR SALE' sign on my car, go to bed, wake up, and the car is unexpectedly missing...

are you
a) the victim of a crime
b) entering the first moments of 'be careful what you wish for' phantom partnership



seems pretty easy imo
bonsaltron is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 12:09 AM   #593
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

I can't believe you guys are still considering his ******ed idea when I stop back after 2 days. If there was some actual agreement that the victim has proof of for $X, then $X (times 2 + premiums) is owed. If an item was offered for sale for whatever amount of money but stolen, the thief owes the item (times 2 + premiums). This requires almost zero thought for the judge adhering to libertarian law. I am not seeing anyone even clever enough to point out a situation where arbitration (by the mutually agreed upon judge, not the state, of course) is necessary for the one/two teeth portion of retribution.

This is just more evidence that Strawn believes in the use of violence and coercion when it suits him, and he is above all others. He thinks the state should have the right to seize property and set an arbitrary amount for the forced exchange. He thinks a cartel of banks has the right to counterfeit. The right to voluntary exchange is absolute in the stateless society. People who disturb this natural process are the only ones who should be met with death or ostracism as the ultimate punishment, not the other way around. Believing these murderers, liars, and thieves for thousands of years has gotten us nowhere. Don't be distracted by him.


---

Chapter 9 - The False Lure of Democracy

Quote:
It is a poor mind that will think with the multitude because it is a multitude: truth is not altered by the opinions of the vulgar or the confirmation of the many. It is more blessed to be wise in truth in face of opinion than to be wise in opinion in face of truth

-Giordano Bruno
(1548–1600)
SOME MIGHT ARGUE THAT a few of the propositions made that evening at dinner originated in Never-Never Land, because they seem too far-fetched to be entertained seriously. But are they, in principle, so different from the outcries we continually hear from political candidates, the news media, and special interest groups? The idea that one should not be allowed to own a yacht, as was proposed at dinner, is no different in principle from the 1990 luxury tax imposed on yacht purchases. Both deny people the freedom to spend their earnings as they wish. The idea that an employer should not be allowed to terminate an employee to make a profit, as was also proposed at dinner, is similar to the numerous federal and state restrictions that currently deny employers the freedom to manage their businesses in a way they deem most profitable.

The very essence of democracy encourages everyone to express opinions about human activities that are none of their business. There are few days that someone doesn’t ask me what I think that “we” (the royal “we”) should “do” about this or that individual, organization, or group activity that is clearly neither my business nor theirs. It is not the answers to such questions that should give us concern; the mere
asking has become so common-place—and with such a sense of democratic pride and entitlement—that today nearly every aspect of human activity is considered public domain.

In a democracy, each of us has license to prescribe for other show to live their lives; run their businesses; whom they may hire; what wages they may pay; what prices they may charge; what, where, when, and how much they may buy or sell; what they may teach; what and where they may smoke, drink, and eat; what they may plant; what medicines they may take; what houses they may build and where they may build them; what they may say; how and where they may practice their religion (even what religion); where they may go; where they may live; how they may die; with whom and how they may engage in sex; whom they may marry and with whom they may associate. On and on this intrusion goes,with more “dos” and “don’ts” added every day.

A staggering 78,851 pages of newly proposed regulations were posted in the 2004 U.S. Federal Register, the government’s official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, notices, and executive orders. An even more staggering fact: that annual number is about average for the past ten years. Federal regulations, combined with others from state and local governments, have reached the point where virtually every human act is subject to some kind of scrutiny by a governmental agency.

While many of these regulations are adopted at the urging of self-righteous do-gooders imposing their social and moral values on the rest of us, other regulations are adopted at the urging of organizations that seek entitlements, special privileges, and curtailment of competition. Labor unions, farmers, and other permanent lobbies, such as AARP, are exceptionally skilled at pushing their special privileges through Congress. In 2005, there were 34,785 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C.—more than double the number from just five years earlier. Businesses and other entities engage these experts to introduce legislation, manipulate regulations, and obtain special favors that prevent, subdue, or overcome competition.

In the spirit of “fair trade,” there are 8,757 tariffs and numerous quotas on imports into the U.S. Tariffs penalize consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices for foreign and domestic goods than would otherwise exist in a free-trade market. These higher prices when paid to a domestic producer are equivalent to subsidies. There are also government subsidies paid directly to manufacturers and farmers to overcome foreign competition. Farm subsidies alone reached $177 billion from 1995 to 2006. According to the Farmers Weekly Report, nearly 70 percent of U.S. soybean value now comes from the U.S. government in the form of subsidies. As can be expected, this unintended but lucrative incentive has caused a 25 percent increase in soybean planting in the U.S. since 1998. As evidenced by their sheer abundance, quotas, tariffs, and subsidies are especially easy to obtain in a democratic republic where one need only persuade one or two politicians. The “you vote for mine and I’ll vote for yours” Congressional buddy system takes care of the rest of the process.

With every president, senator, congressional representative, governor, and assemblyman trying to make a historical impact on society, it’s no wonder we have an unrelenting flood of new “laws” (more accurately, legislations) enacted every year. Today, virtually every activity is subject to local, state, or federal regulation. During the 2006 California legislative session, there were 4,929 bills written (1,853 in the Senate and 3,076 in the Assembly); 1,172 were passed, and the governor vetoed only 262. On the final day of that session, the Assembly speaker proudly announced, “I think this is going to be a landmark legislative year for us.”

Regulations are very likely a greater impediment to freedom and prosperity than are imposed taxes. As with the imposition of taxes, regulations divert human energy from productive actions to nonproductive actions. As such, society loses the otherwise meaningful production of those bureaucrats involved in the creation and enforcement of regulations, the professional consultants who assist those being regulated, and, to some degree, those to whom the regulations actually apply. Virtually every major U.S. company has a cadre of lawyers, accountants, and consultants who ferret through the perpetually changing labyrinth of regulations to identify those that are applicable to their clientèle, interpret their meaning, and then recommend operational adjustments to those clients.

This ever-increasing burden of regulations, however, is predictably met with human perseverance and ingenuity. Human nature will find innovative ways to circumvent the full impact of these bureaucratic restrictions. Many people discover loopholes that require less inconvenience than would compliance, others operate at the regulatory fringe where the ability to enforce compliance is unclear, or they simply operate entirely outside the regulatory arm of the State. All the energy thus diverted from productive activity into meeting or circumventing regulatory compliance simply reduces the production of real goods and services, thereby increasing their end cost to consumers.

A democratic state will naturally gravitate to an ever-greater “tragedy of the commons,” in which citizens try to get a bigger share of the funds acquired by the State. Since those funds are now commonly owned, everyone has a right to claim a share. Even free riders become just as deserving of shares as do society’s contributors. Instead of being ostracized, free riders are now entitled to free rides. These entitlements are further justified by their advocates declaring them as “rights” (active rights), implying they have equal footing with natural rights (passive, or inalienable rights). An active right is a claim upon the life of another, while a natural right obligates others to refrain from any such claims. Therefore, a claimant of a right to a free ride, such as free healthcare, is a disclaimer of the natural, inalienable rights of the personupon whom the claim is made. Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), the famous French political economist, described the state as the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.

This is not meant to cast blame on those who exploit the democratic system to obtain favors and resources. It is only rational to acquire resources at the least perceived cost. The democratic State simply provides an attractive means for some to acquire the resources produced by others at little or no cost to themselves, while preventing any real recourse for those from whom those resources are taken. Individuals who take resources from others without the strong arm of the State behind them would find it a risky and expensive enterprise.

When the opportunity to punish (ostracize) free riders is absent, the highest producers and contributors to the community typically ratchet back their own contributions to something near the group average. This iterative ratchet effect was demonstrated in many natural experiments that occurred in the former Soviet Union. Soviet agricultural policies nationalized farmland and forced farmers to organize their labor as a collective action. Still, the Soviets allowed 3 percent of the land on collective farms to be held privately, so local farming families could produce food for their own consumption and privately sell any excess. This private land produced an estimated one third of all agricultural products in the Soviet Union. These small plots saved many Russians from famine. In China, the greatest famine in human history followed the collectivization of all peasant land. Statistics indicate that at least thirty million people starved to death from 1958 to 1962.

The periods of famine following collectivized farming exemplify “the tragedy of the commons,” in which each person receives the same share of the total production, regardless of individual productive contribution. The Pilgrims experienced this same tragedy of the commons during the first few years of arriving in America, when their crop production was delivered to a common pool. Facing another disastrous year of crop production and famine, they decided to parcel the land in 1623; each family was rewarded with what they produced. As a result, the Pilgrims celebrated their first bountiful crop in the very same year the plan was adopted.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 12:25 AM   #594
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Who's talking about personal whims? The plaintiff gave public notice of the conditions (including price) under which he was willing to part with his property, before the defendant took it.
And those conditions were an output of the plantiff's personal whims. QED.
 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:15 AM   #595
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poker879 View Post
Well as far as I can see, everything I've found says that the buyer owes the full amount, which seems unreasonable, and that is with the state, so I don't see how it gives a different answer in AC. I'm assuming I'm missing something, so why don't you show us the answer for the "whole range of answers" within the state and this will shed some light on the answer in AC.
The short answer is that under a state, taking someone's property means you owe what either the seller or the government says you owe, whereas under voluntary exchange you owe what the seller says you owe as the final word, no ifs ands or buts.

If you don't like the terms, don't take the property in ACland. If you voluntarily took the property, guess what, you're on the hook for the (previous) owner's terms of exchange, because no third party has the right to overrule them for you.

Quote:
I see that you're trying to say that it was an implied contract, which it of course wasn't. However if the scenario was more like the one I described it would hilight your question better.
The earlier concept of an implied contract was useful to explain the legalism, but not essential.

It is more accurate to say that the thief gave constructive assent to the seller's offering price by voluntarily taking the item, since everyone is legally responsible for abiding by the property owner's terms as an indispensable part of every exchange in ACland.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:04 AM   #596
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

You are still absolutely wrong Strawn. No ACist would agree with what you are claiming is our theory.

A judge does not find arbitrary amounts. The item was stolen, not an asking price. As I said, you have yet to even say an instance where this arbitration would be necessary. (I won't help you, just laugh at you.)
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:05 AM   #597
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,623
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
whereas under voluntary exchange you owe what the seller says you owe as the final word, no ifs ands or buts.
THEFT IS NOT VOLUNTARY
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:08 AM   #598
zan nen
temp-banned
 
zan nen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: hardcore state apologist
Posts: 4,377
Re: Inclined to Liberty

What he is doing is worse than hyperbole. He has been proven wrong in every debate and has to resort to misrepresenting our theory.

Defend democracy Strawn. Defend your belief in the ruling elite being able to counterfeit.
zan nen is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:13 AM   #599
Borodog
Enemy of the State
 
Borodog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: I Didn't Vote, Bitch
Posts: 25,491
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The short answer is that under a state, taking someone's property means you owe what either the seller or the government says you owe, whereas under voluntary exchange you owe what the seller says you owe as the final word, no ifs ands or buts.

If you don't like the terms, don't take the property in ACland. If you voluntarily took the property, guess what, you're on the hook for the (previous) owner's terms of exchange, because no third party has the right to overrule them for you.



The earlier concept of an implied contract was useful to explain the legalism, but not essential.

It is more accurate to say that the thief gave constructive assent to the seller's offering price by voluntarily taking the item, since everyone is legally responsible for abiding by the property owner's terms as an indispensable part of every exchange in ACland.
Your carricature of "ACland" is farcical and delusional. A transparent and clumsy strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with how social norms regarding restitution for property theft would evolve under the absence of a judicial monopoly.

But enjoy your handwaving and irrelevant ruminations.
Borodog is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:23 AM   #600
Poker879
old hand
 
Poker879's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,388
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The short answer is that under a state, taking someone's property means you owe what either the seller or the government says you owe, whereas under voluntary exchange you owe what the seller says you owe as the final word, no ifs ands or buts.
you're wrong. if it were truly a contract (which it wasn't, but you are pretending it was) then in state land the "thief/contract violator" owes the full amount stipulated in the contract. The issue is, it clearly was not a contract. Look up sale contract remedies on google.

The rest of what you said after this is nonsense. Please look to the above and you will see your answer. If it were a REAL contract then he owes the money, there is no implied contract here.
Poker879 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 09:28 PM.


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