Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-30-2010, 12:31 AM   #901
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Here's a shot of me on Monday, on my own donated time, speaking at the National Council of State Legislators (I looked for you...I must have missed you):
yeah I was probably on 2+2 doing my part to inform players about what awaits them if their state opts out, giving them the straight dope as it were as opposed to the PPA 'unlicensed sites will grow!' whitewash.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:37 AM   #902
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post
I have to cry BS on this one. They tried to Ban it before and we still have a bunch of sites that we can play US.

My only problem with the bill is if they, the US govt, Try to shut out Stars and Full Tilt I feel that this would be anti-competitive. Why not have Harrarhs and The Sands complete against Stars and FT? Are they scared of the competition?

Also, Wouldn't it be further violation of the WTO agreement by banning Stars and FT? We can be looking at an all and out Trade war over On-line poker.


Excuse me if I'm way off with this. I'm only reading in bits and pieces and I'm not a lawyer.
This whole bill violates the WTO. No one, not in the US, not in EU and not in the world seems to care; except Antigua and it can't do anything.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:40 AM   #903
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
Just to be fair we have also seen online sports gambling go on untouched for about 15 years now. Sports gambling was banned before online sports gambling was even an option. They do go after the operators and processors but any person with a computer can make a sports bet tomorrow for about as much as they want to bet. They can get paid out for the win and they aren't breaking any federal laws. In most states they are committing a misdemeanor and that is a grey area because it is on the internet. 1 person has been arrested for this and it was because they thought he was a bookie.
Our Achilles' heel was discovered by players after UIGEA passed, when some big sites, most notably Party Poker, packed up and left the U.S. market. It's been noted here as well, in that the opt-out state concern isn't about not being able to play. Rather, the concern is losing two big sites. In short, our weakness is that we require a decently-sized player base. Just imagine if Congress or the DoJ could get FTP and PS out of the U.S. market.

Compare that to losing two sports betting sites. Sports betting sites don't have the same need for participants as poker sites, making them a far tougher target. Sports bettors would simply find two new sites.

Quote:
Why then would congress ban something that has actual court wins as far as it being a game of skill?
I don't think many care. Also, they don't wish to have unregulated offshore sites offering it while prohibiting U.S. based sites from doing the same.

Quote:
The UIGEA is something that most of congress regrets now. It was passed without a vote in the senate. A few men made the UIGEA happen.

Its not like online poker has a huge opposition. And yes part of that has to do with the PPA. I just don't think online poker would be outlawed. Poker was recently totally legalized in a state considered conservative.
They regret it because we poker players made them regret it. This is part of what we gained from the bills in Congress now.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:40 AM   #904
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Bob Goodlatte can't snap his fingers and create a bill with exactly what he wants any better than any other lawmaker.

The timeline is way too short IMO even if your larger point is correct.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:43 AM   #905
gtp9998
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 305
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

So am I to understand that if Stars does not get a licence, that my ISP will be legally required to block it? If so, aren't there techy ways around that?
gtp9998 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:43 AM   #906
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Congress fears that some won't. They have expressed concern over how to ensure compliance. I'm sure they'd love to take players who already have offshore accounts and transition them into the licensed system so that they don't have current accounts at offshore sites.
Outside of hardcore grinders with like SNE status, Congress is nuts.

That said Id rather they ensure compliance by licensing Stars and Tilt rather than a 50% tax.

But, as you said there is no love for the status quo, i didnt sense a lot of love and affection for current sites either and doubt Congress wants them involved.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:43 AM   #907
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
yeah I was probably on 2+2 doing my part to inform players about what awaits them if their state opts out, giving them the straight dope as it were as opposed to the PPA 'unlicensed sites will grow!' whitewash.
Thanks for blowing off my broader point of seeking to get states to participate and acting like I want states to opt out.

Anyway, I do think unlicensed sites will grow. They'll take the players from opt out states. I didn't say they'll become as large as FTP or PS, of course. I merely said that they'll gain players.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:44 AM   #908
Jussurreal
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post
I blame Bush, Jon Kyl and Bill Frist, all Republicans BTW which kills me because out of one side of there mouth they talk about less Gov't Regulation than BANG! UIEGA(more gov't regulation). I'm done my rant now
Bush signed the safe port act. It was a must sign piece of legislation. The fact that UIGEA was attached was a non factor to Bush, the main thing was to make the ports safer. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with UIGEA.

And you need a quick politics lesson. Conservatives are for strong militaries, and homeland security, that is where they spend money. Like the safe port act.

Democrats are for weak military, but for whatever reason they believe that minorities should have an advantage over whites in every aspect of life. Dems are also for a more socialist type of government, conservatives are for capitalism. That is where democrats spend taxpayer money, and they spend much more than republicans spend on military.

If you believe that a socialist system means less government than a capitalist system then you don't know much. Therefore dems are for a much bigger federal government than republicans. Thats not to say that republicans don't favor some government intervention but far less than democrats.

Democrats think that the masses should be told what to do, conservatives think the masses that made our country number 1 in the world know what the hell they are doing.

Our country was made great by very conservative values. Obama wants to totally reverse this. It is mind blowing.
Jussurreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:45 AM   #909
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtp9998 View Post
So am I to understand that if Stars does not get a licence, that my ISP will be legally required to block it? If so, aren't there techy ways around that?
No. There is no ISP blocking.

Licensed sites will, on their own, block players logging in from opt out states.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:47 AM   #910
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Anyway, I do think unlicensed sites will grow. They'll take the players from opt out states. I didn't say they'll become as large as FTP or PS, of course. I merely said that they'll gain players.
but for how long??? Their status quo can't last, right? Again, you can't have it two ways, even though you would clearly like to.

That is what initially turned me off to the PPA, btw. The fearmongering, glossing over the negatives, trying to lead everyone around by the nose. Your organization would probably be at least as successful, if not more, if you simply provided people all the facts and let them come to their own conclusions.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:49 AM   #911
arod4276
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 714
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

YOU gotta be the worlds top sheeple.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
Bush signed the safe port act. It was a must sign piece of legislation. The fact that UIGEA was attached was a non factor to Bush, the main thing was to make the ports safer. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with UIGEA.

And you need a quick politics lesson. Conservatives are for strong militaries, and homeland security, that is where they spend money. Like the safe port act.

Democrats are for weak military, but for whatever reason they believe that minorities should have an advantage over whites in every aspect of life. Dems are also for a more socialist type of government, conservatives are for capitalism. That is where democrats spend taxpayer money, and they spend much more than republicans spend on military.

If you believe that a socialist system means less government than a capitalist system then you don't know much. Therefore dems are for a much bigger federal government than republicans. Thats not to say that republicans don't favor some government intervention but far less than democrats.

Democrats think that the masses should be told what to do, conservatives think the masses that made our country number 1 in the world know what the hell they are doing.

Our country was made great by very conservative values. Obama wants to totally reverse this. It is mind blowing.
arod4276 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:52 AM   #912
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post
If the UnLicense site is better than the Licensed site where do you think I'll be playing? I'm sure they'll still be able to send a check to some Lawyer in FLA to make sure I get paid. How are the banks going to determine where a check is from?
I find it hard to believe unlicensed sites will be better then licensed sites, but anything is possible. Which unlicensed sites would be left serving US customers? If your in an opt-out state you don't really have a choice but play on an unlicensed site but I doubt there will be many good choices left after US regulation.

IMO, whether or not sites like PS/FT receive a US license, they aren't an option if you live in an opt-out state. If PS/FT don't get a US license after exhausting all legal possibilities then they leave the US market. I don't think they will be allowed to keep their license in places like France,Italy maybe the whole EU if they were to allow US players once it was expressly illegal to.

The US gov as well as sites who have a license in the US as well as the EU would lobby hard to have sites shut down in EU countries for being "bad" untrustworthy operators who openly violate laws.

IF sites (like PS/FT)who operate legally now, in places like much of the EU get a US license, in which case they wont offer games to those in opt-out states. IF they don't get a US license then their gone from the US altogether anyway.

Last edited by novahunterpa; 07-30-2010 at 12:57 AM. Reason: typo bunch of typos
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:52 AM   #913
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
Bush signed the safe port act. It was a must sign piece of legislation. The fact that UIGEA was attached was a non factor to Bush, the main thing was to make the ports safer. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with UIGEA.

And you need a quick politics lesson. Conservatives are for strong militaries, and homeland security, that is where they spend money. Like the safe port act.

Democrats are for weak military, but for whatever reason they believe that minorities should have an advantage over whites in every aspect of life. Dems are also for a more socialist type of government, conservatives are for capitalism. That is where democrats spend taxpayer money, and they spend much more than republicans spend on military.

If you believe that a socialist system means less government than a capitalist system then you don't know much. Therefore dems are for a much bigger federal government than republicans. Thats not to say that republicans don't favor some government intervention but far less than democrats.

Democrats think that the masses should be told what to do, conservatives think the masses that made our country number 1 in the world know what the hell they are doing.

Our country was made great by very conservative values. Obama wants to totally reverse this. It is mind blowing.
Well said. It is too bad that not many Republicans are conservatives. The American Spectator has an excellent article about the socialism v. capitalism divide in the US. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/0...-class-and-the I suggest that everyone read it because the online poker issue is really just a small example about this divide. It demonstrates why Reps. Bacchus and Baumann are against our freedom to play poker online. They are part of the ruling class just like the Democrats.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:53 AM   #914
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
Bush signed the safe port act. It was a must sign piece of legislation. The fact that UIGEA was attached was a non factor to Bush, the main thing was to make the ports safer. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with UIGEA.

And you need a quick politics lesson. Conservatives are for strong militaries, and homeland security, that is where they spend money. Like the safe port act.

Democrats are for weak military, but for whatever reason they believe that minorities should have an advantage over whites in every aspect of life. Dems are also for a more socialist type of government, conservatives are for capitalism. That is where democrats spend taxpayer money, and they spend much more than republicans spend on military.

If you believe that a socialist system means less government than a capitalist system then you don't know much. Therefore dems are for a much bigger federal government than republicans. Thats not to say that republicans don't favor some government intervention but far less than democrats.

Democrats think that the masses should be told what to do, conservatives think the masses that made our country number 1 in the world know what the hell they are doing.

Our country was made great by very conservative values. Obama wants to totally reverse this. It is mind blowing.
Oh God, politics forum please.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:59 AM   #915
BigAlK
Pooh-Bah
 
BigAlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,703
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Oh God, politics forum please.
+ 1,000,000
BigAlK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:09 AM   #916
Former DJ
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Southern USA
Posts: 1,316
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
PX's analysis of the amendments explains why this probably isnt true. If they cant get licensed, then someone that buys them can't get licensed.

Stars and Tilt think they can win an argument that they are serving the market legally and, therefore, can get licensed. I dont think they are going to get licensed, but I can see the sites deciding that the chance of licensing is worth the risk of losing the status quo. They are also at the same point we are: if they do outright oppose the bill, they feed into their opponents hands, hurt the chances of regulation, and pretty much assure they are never getting licensed. This way they are perceived as supporters of regulated online poker. Again, I dont think it will work, but I dont think it needs a grand conspiracy theory to explain their behavior.

FWIW, a decent bit of what you write does seem to be based on half-baked conspiracy theories and it drowns out some of the substance that you add. There is a world of difference between questioning strategy and tactics, debating likely outcomes, and questioning the motives of people who are (in TE and Skall's case, for free) donating a **** load of their time and effort towards improving poker rights.

If you scale back the conspiracies and accusations and focus more on the substance (which I you have done at times) and less on wild theories about payouts and backroom deals, you will find these guys pretty responsive even when they disagree with you.
LG:

OK, after reading Poker Stars press release and your analysis of the situation, I'm willing to concede that my half-baked "conspiracy theory" is probably wrong - your analysis makes better sense.

In the press release, Poker Stars contends that they have done "nothing wrong" and should therefore be licensed. That is, most likely, wishful thinking on their part; but I agree with you that they probably had little choice but to take that tack. Maybe Poker Stars (and Full Tilt) are thinking, "Ultimately, when all is said and done, these bills will probably never become law; so it doesn't hurt for us to play along and say that we support them. If the bills do become law and we are denied a license, then we go to war in the courts and try to get the law overturned." (I imagine one of the first routes they would go is filing a complaint against the United States with the World Trade Organization. I believe that tack has already been tried with mixed results. Challenging the law through the U.S. courts is likely to be a long drawn out affair.)

Not all of my "conspiracy theory" is necessarily wrong. Party Gaming (Party Poker) may have a good chance of getting back into the U.S. market if HR 2267 becomes law. Unlike PS and FT, Party Gaming withdrew from the U.S. market after the UIGEA became law. Rich Garber was an executive with Party at the time this decision was taken. Now Mr. Garber is the President of Harrah's new Interactive Gaming Division - which will almost surely apply for a "legal" gaming license. If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming in order to get access to the Party Poker software, then Harrah's doesn't have to expend enormous time and resources developing their own software from scratch. During the application process for licensing, Rich Garber (and Harrah's) can make an argument - with some validity - that Party Gaming is a "responsible operator" since they [voluntarily] withdrew from the American market upon passage of the UIGEA. That argument will carry more weight than the argument being put forth by Stars and Tilt.

Former DJ
Former DJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:24 AM   #917
bull62
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 41
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
LG:

If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming in order to get access to the Party Poker software, then Harrah's doesn't have to expend enormous time and resources developing their own software from scratch.

Former DJ
I would bet large sums of money that Harrah's already has their poker client software ready to deploy.
bull62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:28 AM   #918
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
...If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming...
This equals you buying Warren Buffet.

Again, do some research and look at the financial situation of both companies.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:13 AM   #919
ktulu22
veteran
 
ktulu22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Respect My Steez
Posts: 2,561
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Really good reading in this thread. Lots of good debate and speculation. Will be really interesting to see how all this plays out.

But I would like to again thank the PPA for all the effort they have put into this. I may not always agree 100% with some of their decisions but I definitely believe they are doing the best that they can. After posting this, I am going to go to the PPA site and make a donation.

Also, you have to give The Engineer credit for all he has done/is doing. The fact that he will spend so much of his own time discussing all of this and replying to almost every single post/question is highly commendable. Your efforts are appreciated TE.
ktulu22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:44 AM   #920
LuckyfishZ
veteran
 
LuckyfishZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,361
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Trying to understand this bill for about 1/2 hr and still can't figure out what's good/bad about this legislation. Could someone be kind enough to post a cliff note?
LuckyfishZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 04:34 AM   #921
Merkle
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Is there any word about changes to IRS regs about reporting gambling income?
Any chance we will be able to net?
Merkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:17 AM   #922
InsidePoker
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bull62 View Post
I would bet large sums of money that Harrah's already has their poker client software ready to deploy.
Harrah's Interactive runs the WSOP dot com

It is live in the UK for real money poker and even sent a qualifer to the ToC this year. It uses software from 888.
InsidePoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:35 AM   #923
InsidePoker
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
LG:

OK, after reading Poker Stars press release and your analysis of the situation, I'm willing to concede that my half-baked "conspiracy theory" is probably wrong - your analysis makes better sense.

In the press release, Poker Stars contends that they have done "nothing wrong" and should therefore be licensed. That is, most likely, wishful thinking on their part; but I agree with you that they probably had little choice but to take that tack. Maybe Poker Stars (and Full Tilt) are thinking, "Ultimately, when all is said and done, these bills will probably never become law; so it doesn't hurt for us to play along and say that we support them. If the bills do become law and we are denied a license, then we go to war in the courts and try to get the law overturned." (I imagine one of the first routes they would go is filing a complaint against the United States with the World Trade Organization. I believe that tack has already been tried with mixed results. Challenging the law through the U.S. courts is likely to be a long drawn out affair.)

Not all of my "conspiracy theory" is necessarily wrong. Party Gaming (Party Poker) may have a good chance of getting back into the U.S. market if HR 2267 becomes law. Unlike PS and FT, Party Gaming withdrew from the U.S. market after the UIGEA became law. Rich Garber was an executive with Party at the time this decision was taken. Now Mr. Garber is the President of Harrah's new Interactive Gaming Division - which will almost surely apply for a "legal" gaming license. If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming in order to get access to the Party Poker software, then Harrah's doesn't have to expend enormous time and resources developing their own software from scratch. During the application process for licensing, Rich Garber (and Harrah's) can make an argument - with some validity - that Party Gaming is a "responsible operator" since they [voluntarily] withdrew from the American market upon passage of the UIGEA. That argument will carry more weight than the argument being put forth by Stars and Tilt.

Former DJ
It's MITCH Garber. Sorry that was just tilting me a bit

Personally I think partnership deals and JVs are the most likely route for pretty much everyone. That's not based on anything other than an educated guess, but there are a lot of talks going on in private. And take a look at how France has worked out.
InsidePoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 05:40 AM   #924
TruePoker ex-CEO
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: No Superusers
Posts: 2,802
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
LG:...
Not all of my "conspiracy theory" is necessarily wrong. Party Gaming (Party Poker) may have a good chance of getting back into the U.S. market if HR 2267 becomes law. Unlike PS and FT, Party Gaming withdrew from the U.S. market after the UIGEA became law. Mitch Garber was an executive with Party at the time this decision was taken. Now Mr. Garber is the President of Harrah's new Interactive Gaming Division - which will almost surely apply for a "legal" gaming license. If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming in order to get access to the Party Poker software, then Harrah's doesn't have to expend enormous time and resources developing their own software from scratch. During the application process for licensing, MitchGarber (and Harrah's) can make an argument - with some validity - that Party Gaming is a "responsible operator" since they [voluntarily] withdrew from the American market upon passage of the UIGEA. That argument will carry more weight than the argument being put forth by Stars and Tilt.

Former DJ
FYP

Party just merged into bwin ......

Harrahs is a candidate for a sale/debt takeover, not a purchase.
TruePoker ex-CEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 06:10 AM   #925
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyfishZ View Post
Trying to understand this bill for about 1/2 hr and still can't figure out what's good/bad about this legislation. Could someone be kind enough to post a cliff note?
Try this:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...95&postcount=2
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

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 05:07 AM.


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