Any joke I (or anybody for that matter) could have made, wouldn't have been any funnier than the thoughts in that post.
mcornelio makes me wish Horry still posted.
Any joke I (or anybody for that matter) could have made, wouldn't have been any funnier than the thoughts in that post.
You don't have to be rude about it.
Asshole.
Yeah and Walmart is doing away with Layaway...WTF???? No more Layaway???How else am I gonna afford that 32in HDTV ??? , now I am going to half to steal one....
I might know a guy that can score you one.Yeah and Walmart is doing away with Layaway...WTF???? No more Layaway???
Are you ing re ed? This is a serious question. Have you been diagnosed with down syndrome?
talking about re ed WTF??? is wrong with withcheese!! this dude wrote a post longer than my college thesis about ing !! this is some borderline insanity ... someone needs to get this guys ip and get him help cuz i know that took longer than 4 days to write.
here we go ...lets all hope you seing how WRONG you are is as funny to you as it is to me.
The Beginning
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1191525&postcount=44
This is the post that started the flame war between me and CF. notice the heavy use of sarcasm, the LOWEST form of humor
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192059&postcount=64
this is only MOSTLY incorrect.
my response:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192073&postcount=66
1 point for withcheese. a crepe is NOT bigger than a pancake. her response?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192082&postcount=67
notice how ing re ed she is being. she is backtracking, trying to claim that she wasn't talking about a crepe being bigger in ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WAY THAT IT CAN BE BIGGER, but only in width. also notice that the better, more accurate thing for her to say would have been "a crepe is WIDER than a pancake." but she didn't say that...she said it was bigger. let's take a look at the definition of bigness:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192092&postcount=69
so here's a chart for all you idiots so you can understand what's going on:
big means "large" in terms of:
1. size
2. height
3. width
4. amount
a pancake is larger than a pancake by at least three out of four of those terms:
1. size (by definition)
2. height (by definition)
4. amount (see below)
about largeness by amount, scope this :
1/4 < 1/3 or 1/2. Therefore, a pancake uses a greater amount of batter than a crepe.
So, to summarize:
- the definition of "big" sets out 4 ways in which something is bigger than something else.
- the typical pancake is "bigger" than the typical crepe by three out of four (75%) of these ways
- cuckingfunt said that a crepe was bigger than a pancake, but
- a pancake is bigger than a crepe by three out of four uses of the word
if someone says "a crepe is bigger than a pancake," they would be WRONG 3 out of 4 times based on the 4 different meanings of "big." in the end, while cucking funt wasn't 100% completely ass stupid wrong 4 out of 4 times, she was 75% wrong.
and what was her response to the argument that saying something vague and ambiguous like "bigger" made her WRONG 75% of the time?
none.
brief aside:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192063&postcount=65
sounds JUST LIKE the insult that johnsmith slung at me earlier in this thread: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50266&page=4&pp=26 this post: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209745&postcount=72 Lame, to be sure, but interesting that these two simpletons try to insult me by saying that it actually takes me a certain amount of time to write something vastly intellectually superior to anything they would ever hope to write. as if taking time to think through all the facets of an issue, essay the entire situation, propose a hypothesis and subject it to intense scrutiny, and then write something mind-blowingly awesome is a bad thing. maybe if these es spent more time writing their own posts, they wouldn't spout of such horrendous bull .
back to the roast:
she sure cared enough about it to criticize me for it here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209772&postcount=76
and here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1209788&postcount=82
you . don't say one thing and then do another, ing hypocrite.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192764&postcount=120
this argument lasted 5 pages. i was thinking about summarizing it, but that would do a disservice to my rediculously hardcore argumentation, so we're going through every single tiny step. deal with it.
my response:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192982&postcount=123
first, that dumb should have known that i wasnt ignorant after this post. the fact that she pulled that insult out of her bag shows that she intentionally ignores the things i say in order to mock me for the i have already denied. that's like the idiot bully on the playground who calls you a name which you dispute by saying "no sir, I am not [for x, y, and z reasons]" then comes back with "yes you are." juvenile man. laughable.
anyway, this point about the use of grammar in slang is essential, so remember this post. her response:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193004&postcount=127
notice that she writes here "no one said that you should abandon the rules of grammar just because [a word] is slang." that's important.
at this point, the argument mutates into whether or not the use of slang is "wrong." i corrected johnny blazes ungrammatical usage of a slang word. CF admits that grammar still applies, but that trying to correct something that is inherently wrong doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong. next:
i would like to point something out to everyone right now, AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS. when i found something that seemed to support cf's contention, i posted it and discussed it and noticed that there was some merit in her position. i didnt just ignore anything that didnt fit with my previous statements because i didnt want to admit error or show any kind of weakness or preserve my fragile ego. ALL OF YOU NEED TO ADMIT WHEN YOUR WRONG INSTEAD OF TRYING DESPERATELY TO CLING TO ANY SCRAP OF AN ARGUMENT THAT IS LEFT SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE EMBARASSMENT OF BEING IN ERROR. !!!!!
so my response here to her argument was that there is no definite authority or old bearded man in the sky dictating whether or not slang is "right" or "wrong." there is no consensus on the issue. some say it's one way, other's say its another. so, since there IS no answer to the question, CF can't be definitively wrong when she makes the claim that both grammatical and ungrammatical use of slang are both wrong. HOWEVER, even though there is no consensus, the oxford english dictionary annually adds several slang words to the dictionary with each edition, recognizing that these words are used pervasively enough to fairly be called part of the english language. at this point, my claim is that if something has advanced to the point that it's getting printed in the dictionary, it is subjected to the grammatical rules that apply to EVERY OTHER ING WORD printed in the dictionary. even if we ASSUME that slang is wrong in some non-grammatical sense, it can still be GRAMMATICALLY right and wrong. CF doesn't understand this, because cucking funt is a mucking foron.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193079&postcount=146
as you can see, CF clearly did not understand my argument or the part that the dictionary definition played. I didn't "refute an argument she did not make." Look at her first argument:
" " is grammatically incorrect. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1192764&postcount=120
she made an argument stating that a word is incorrect. i responded by showing a reason for why it may be considered correct. it's a new argument, but it relies on the old one, a new spin on the things weave already said.
plus, notice how she sneakily says is grammatically incorrect while in the very next post saying that "we shouldn't abandon the rules of grammar just because is slang." so while she's admitting that something abides by all the rules of english grammar, she says that its grammatically incorrect. HOW CAN SOMETHING THAT ABIDES BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR BE INCORRECT?!?! Answer: by pretending to talk about an old argument using a NEW concept, that of "proper english." as if proper english is the only type of english that is "grammatically correct." guess what ...that ain't true!!! recognized dialects are considered grammatically correct (if they follow their own internal grammatical rules). Just because I wouldn't used the word " " at a tea party or in a court room doesn't mean that it's grammatically INCORRECT. Some slang, the that isnt officially recognized by the ing authorities on english, is not only IMproper english, but is also probably grammatically INcorrect. but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
it's true...she realizes that she's losing ground here in the argument. she's wilidly throwing around this claim that i'm responding to an argument she didn't make when i'm actually DIRECTLY responding to the argument she made. So she CHANGED THE SCOPE OF THE ARGUMENT, taking it from an issue of what's grammatically correct to what's proper.
that's bull . she's ducking the issue, covering up her original turd of an argument by changing the ing terms and arguing a COMPLETELY NEW POINT.
and as if "proper" english is the only type of english that can be correct. this is dumb.
plus, i then go on to show logically how even if is incorrect by cuckingfunt's bull standards (which it isn't), there is a structure to language which mandates particular forms EVEN FOR WORDS WHICH ARE NOT PROPER ENGLISH OR GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. even if cf is right (which she isn't), chastizing me for correcting someone's usage is bull because " " is clearly part of our vernacular, whereas " med" clearly is NOT. one more point won by withcheese.
but where is her response to this argument? where does she rebut the new insight that " " is right and " med" is wrong for this further reason? we could spend all day looking for it and not find it because she COMPLETELY IGNORED IT'S EXISTENCE. no rebuttal, just an acquiescense to its mastery over her.
but even if it looks like cf has a point, this next exchange exposes her true idiocy:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193155&postcount=164
for one thing, this post ignores the reality that one thing can be MORE incorrect than another thing...she doesn't realize that there are VERYING GRADATIONS OF ERROR by which something can be quantified. she's so stupid that she thinks its re ed to highlight the different levels of wrongness something may have.
let's forget the fact that it's not wrong. let's instead pretend as if we believe her and her inane arguments. EVEN GIVING HER THE FULL BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT, she is still wrong, now about the fact that pointing out different levels of wrongness of two wrong things is wrong. this is dumb, as i hilite in my response:
i make an argument here about two slang sentences full of "improper" english and what cucking funt would want to call "incorrect" english.
at this point, she MUST admit that one "incorrect" sentence can be more correct than another "incorrect" sentence. she would be delusional if she didnt realize that this rebuts her argument that its "re ed" to correct someones incorrect english with further incorrect english.
but she doesnt:
WHAT?!?! how exactly is it re ed to point out that someone is using a slang word incorrectly?!?!!?
its not like im saying that johnny used improper english and look, here is the proper english way to do it. that. i dont give a mad about proper english, as anyone can tell from reading this mammoth post.
THE ING POINT IS THAT YOU CAN STILL BE INCORRECT ABOUT USING SLANG. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND !?!?! your argument is, and I quote, "Attempting to correct one incorrect usage by suggesting another incorrect usage is ing re ed and makes you look like more of a than you already do."
that isnt re ed...what's re ed is using the word " med"...what's even MORE re ed is trying to justify someone using " med" over " ," first by saying that its grammatically incorrect, then by saying its not proper english, then coming back and saying its not grammatically correct. so here, for the last time, SOMETHING CAN STILL BE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT EVEN IF ITS NOT "PROPER" ENGLISH. conversely, another thing can be incorrect as opposed to that original something EVEN WHEN NEITHER THING IS "PROPER" ENGLISH!!!! !!!!!!!
pointing out that someone did something WRONG in one sense is not re ed, EVEN IF BOTH THE ORIGINAL WRONG THING AND THE CORRECTION ARE WRONG IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SENSE!!!! " " is not wrong either grammatically or slangly, but " med" is.
" MED" IS NOT A WORD. " " IS. DEAL WITH IT
that's about all the rebuttal you need, even though the only remaining argument of hers is that i'm a re . i did show through example though that SHE is the re , not I.
Just for kicks, here is my response, which is just a reader's digest of all of the above:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193298&postcount=189
OUCH! her response:
yeah, i danced around your point. YOU ARE A MORON!!!! I didnt dance around , i met it head on. and no that wasnt the only point you tried to make, as the thousands of words above show. and the fact that you reassert that that WAS your point just reinvokes my rebuttal to it, which was that you had missed the POINT OF THE ARGUMENT. i dont give a what sophmoric point you were haphazardly trying to make. YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT, probably because you are too stupid. that's why i said "that's not the point." as in "the point of the argument," not "cuckingfunt's ridiculously moronic point." jesus ing CHRIST!!!!
i love my reponse:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193305&postcount=194
here's what she comes back with this bull :
"seriously?" "give it up?" "do us both a favor????" that all you can come up with after i showed you to be a liar and informed you that YOU were the one who was misunderstanding things??? you dismiss an explanation for why you got things wrong by IGNORING it??? oh my god, your worse than i thought.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193338&postcount=210
this is about to get slapped with a in the face right here...watch:
that's a pretty big burn. it IS in fact what the entire argument hinges upon, whether or not you use the properties of english grammar when using slang. THAT IS THE WHOLE ING ARGUMENT! she IGNORES things by calling them "irrelevant" even when SOMETHING COULD NOT BE ANY MORE RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT. see how ing sneaky she is being? she attempts to characterize things as irrelevant so she won't have to answer them, but those very things are the things that are INTEGRAL to the ing argument. she has no answer to them, so she pretends like they don't matter. well, i'm here to tell you that they DO matter, and no one is fooled by your bull arguing tactics you dirty nasty .
here's what she said:
the argument is about three issues:
1) is " " grammatically correct?
2) is " " proper english?
3) is " " the word that EVERYONE IS THE WHOLE ING WORLD USES while " med" is NEVER USED BY ANYONE WHATSOEVER?
Answers:
1) yes, but debatable, heavily favoring withcheese's arguments in the affirmative though
2) doesn't mean ...i don't care if it's proper english, that has no connection to grammar
3) even though cf would have you believe that is "just slightly more correct" than med, the FACT that even her demented mind cannot deny is one word is used by those who want to talk about and the other is NEVER USED.
as you can see, it is TRUE that the argument is deeply related to whether one word is more proper than another based on the rules of grammar. and guess what ? you admitted that in your post! so not only do you admit that i am right about my position on point 3, you are admitting that you were wrong that that wasn't one of the major things we were arguing about.
seven and eight.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193597&postcount=237she
she is still holding on to the self-created fiction that this is a different issue from what we've been talking about for ing page after page:
but she's wrong. i've shown above now FOUR different times how there is a DIRECT and ing INTEGRAL connection to the topic of our entire discussion. that's another point for me.
at this point, the tiness argument begins, which is really just a complete ownage of cucking funt by her pimp, withcheese. here was the post that started it all:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193158&postcount=165
now all of us can agree that this is just plain re ed. so i called her ass out on it:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193161&postcount=166
here is the avatar of which i speak:
now, choosing that as your avatar, your face in the forum, is ty, as we shall soon see.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193164&postcount=168
nice cover up
here's my response:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193186&postcount=171
look at that scathing ing rebuke!!!! and her response?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193294&postcount=187
ahem..."[I love] [d]irty, kinky, perverted, rough, nasty sex." Let me repeat that with bigger letters:
cuckingfunt: "[I love] [d]irty, kinky, perverted, rough, nasty sex."
let's remember that for later.
notice also how she misunderstands my argument...i didn't say she WAS a , I said she ACTED like a on this message board, that she has a ty persona. big difference, but apparently a difference she cannot comprehend.
my response:
dirty kinky perverted rough nasty sex = lewd, lacivious, licentious = ty
open in sexuality (different from dirty kinky perverted rough and nasty) =/= ty
now, that wasnt too hard to understand now, was it?
apparently it was:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193310&postcount=197
wait, so when I said "'open in with their sexuality' DOES NOT EQUAL lewd, lacivious, lisentious behavior" that WASN'T a response?
who the ARE you? I mean seriously you are just really dumb. you said i didnt respond when i just gave you a HARDCORE response showing you why all the things you just said were ing illogical. wake the up!
here is the clincher...i'll requote cf's original post just so everyone can grasp the full magnitude of the ownage here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193322&postcount=202
that is so clearly true that it doesnt really need an explication, other than this graph:
cuckingfunt says: lewd behavior does not equal
withcheese proves: lewd behavior equals
cucking funt: wrong again (what is that, like 5 now? 5 or 6, i've ing lost count)
so how does cf respond?
she says this despite the fact that a) i'm not saying she IS, i'm saying she ACTS, and b) SHE'S GOT THE ING DEFINTION OF DISSOLUTE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER ING FACE. It means licentious which means "sexually unrestrained." Dirty, kinky, perverted, rough, and nasty sex sounds pretty sexually unrestrained to me and everyone else in the entire universe. it's also pretty lewd. THERE- ING-FORE, IT IS DISSOLUTE. YOU ARE WRONG.
or as i so eloquently put it in my post to this thread:
Ten. Or eleven...maybe twelve? i dont know, but thats a lot of ing wrongness on cf's part.
no ...i wasn't trying to prove that you were a . I was trying to prove that you ACT like a (what is that, the five hundreth time i've had to say that?) not that you ARE a . Jesus ING Christ. im about to have a breakdown here. you devaluing the train of ing EQUALITIES by harping on the ing immorality is almost personally offensive, but is certainly offensive to the english language and all english speaking people in the entire world. here's what cucking funt just said "even though these things are ing EQUATED in the dictionary, i say they don't apply to me because i'm not dissolute, even though you just proved it to me with the definition that I ignored on purpose to save my ego." you SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!
as i eloquently said here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193534&postcount=230
haduken. oh, and I love this response:
for one thing that second inequality might or might not be true...of course no one is ever going to call themself immoral or dissolute... ing HITLER remained obstinate to the end. even if you were the loosest ing in the entire world, you probably wouldnt admit it. your just that much of a .
for another thing, and i've now said this two hundred and fifty million times, is that im not saying you ARE a , im saying you ACT like a . i think its important to hilite this to the forum so that everyone realizes how many times i had to say this before that DUMB ING realized what i was saying SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
sorry got a little out of hand there. this is turning into a meltdown. it, here's what i said to that dumb ass er:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193588&postcount=235
goddamn i'm smooth.
lies. i also proved this was wrong. remember the "dirty kinky perverted rough nasty sex" thing? saying that your all about that is ING DISSOLUTE...BY ING DEFINITION. you suck your a . your probably going to come back and respond to this gigantic post by saying that "oh look, i made you spend so much time repsonding to me, your my , look how mad you got." that's a bull reponse. your and idiot. i hate you, and im not your , i just LOVE proving you wrong it makes me feel so happy and wonderful i just med in my pants. NEXT!
see? SEE WHAT I MEAN?!?!?!
i'll just let the responses speak for themselves:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193635&postcount=246
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193638&postcount=247
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1193717&postcount=257
her idiocy revealed:
that pretty much sums it up. twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen.
then:
for real...this does not know the difference between a "necessary" and "sufficient" condition...and she has the ing AUDACITY to call ME ignorant.
all right , get your ass ready cause im about to learn you somethin:
a NECESSARY condition a cause that MUST be there for the effect to exist. like for the effect to be "receiving a blow job from cucking funt," a necessary conditions are that a) i have a which will fit in your mouth and b) your mouth is free and clear of all other s that may have penetrated it recently. now obviously you couldnt handle my rock hard in your mouth AND you literally live off of sucking so you wouldnt be able to blow mine, so that couldnt happen because the NECESSARY conditions for it to happen cannot exist.
a SUFFICIENT condition is one that is enough alone to cause an effect, but is not the only thing in the mother ing world that will cause it. for instance, immorality with a ...if your a sexually immoral woman, boom, your a . but even if you aren't sexually immoral, you can still be a . that what the ing word MEANS. DO you finally understand this now ?!>!?>!?!>?! oh, and by the way:
suck on THAT !!!!11!!!!! THE WHOLE THING is moot because if your lewd then your licentious and lascivious which makes you ING IMMORAL!!!!! Face the facts you dirty , your a , and no amount of skeezy underhanded bull is going to allow you to escape from that brand of iniquity. .
skipping a few of her more meaningless posts, we see this:
that stings!!
twenty twenty-one twenty-two
i think that pretty much sums things up...she just made a patently ABSURD comment and has shown that shes just spewing out of her mouth for the sake of being contentious. she doesnt have any idea what shes saying. its ALL wrong. and she's doing it again now!!!! dont let her fool you. she's let some time dull the memory of the dim wits in the forum about what actually happened in this thread and is trying to convince everyone that she didnt get her ass seriously stomped. but i will not let her perptrate such an injustice on the troll forum....i am looking out for all of you, making sure that no one does you wrong. cucking funt is trying to you, but i'm not going to let her.
here's an example of her making up pretend argument that even SHE is not stupid enough to acutally believe:
woah!!!! what a MORON! watch:
duh...she still keeps trying to pull it back to her BEING a so she'll have something to sanctimoniously deny. but she just doesn't GET IT. it's not about her, or anyone else, BEING a . it's about her ACTING like a . jesus ING christ!!!
and guess what?!?!?! she finally admitted her error:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1194145&postcount=319
can you ing believe it?!?!?!?! she admitted she was WRONG!!!!!!!!! stop the ing presses, we got a new headline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
then, as a pentultimate dying gasp, she says this, and I respond:
...just as we can look over this entire post and see what's up. that's right, 13 pages worth of ownage. 25 or 26 instances of cucking funt being in error. jesus. and finally, he last breath before dying:
wow, now she's starting to talk like johnny blaze...heaven help her!!! but I remain on top of things, nailing her coffin shut with this gem:
her response????????? NONE.
this was the final straw...she couldn't handle being proven wrong for what, the twenty-seventh time? she had to leave, HAD to, or else her ego would have collapsed under the sheer force of my smack talking will and she would have been thrust into a catatonic state of smacked down syndrom from which she would never recover.
hope all of this was good for a laugh cucking funt. it sure made me feel good to bask in the warmth of my triumph once again. maybe if your lucky i'll deign myself to you and your miserable little life will be compltete.
Don't bring that gy troll forum in here.
i just cant believe this guy actually spent all that time getting all his information in order to write a thesis about how cuckingfunt and how shes a , which by the way she will willingly admit.
Hi Angel_Luv... hows its going with the rasho withdrawals?
Nobody here gives a .
so let me get this straight.. katy doesn't get pussy bruises from mexicans, das is midge's father, mcornelio is still a complete and utter moron and katy is playing avatar noir. Did I miss anything else that is relevant?
I feel very sorry for me.
All I know is Sho had better kick tail and make all this worth it.
I'm excited for Sho; he is going to have a great year.
i dont think that you mentioned me enough in your post though... try to incorporate some asian bukakke in there...
well your description was so very.....SUCKY, come on, bags that need sewing up....I jsut was curious if the work polyps may sound familiar.
Oh and I am a PARAMEDIC...
Sil- Skip post 591
nice avatar... his wife let you sit on his lap... and by the look on your face....
Are heart palpitations good or bad?
how about i mention you in closed captions. would you mind if they put them up at FedEx field then?
holy ing this thread sucks
It just means there is a cold front coming in. Nothing to worry about.
nope I think that covers what is relevant...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
