Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: A corporation is NOT free market

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The difference is that I don't see it as injustice, people should be responsible for how they delegate authority.

    We have been conditioned to think that you should be able to delegate authority without any responsibility but that is incorrect.

    It's like the laws against insider trading, the market is supposed to function on "insider trading" and those who don't know anything should be wary to invest, especially if it is money they can't afford to lose.
    The only insider trading that should be prohibited is government officeholders and employees trading based on advanced knowledge of government actions.

    The system would sort itself out and more people would either not invest in companies they know nothing about or refrain from voting for directors.
    And if directors and/or management were held to account by shareholders if they mislead them or behaved in an obviously inappropriate manner then there would be less incidents for people to be held responsible for.
    Suppose that we held firearm sellers strictly liable for the torts committed with the firearms they sold.

    They should have been more careful in choosing their customers, no?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-27-2019 at 12:39 AM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Suppose that we held firearm sellers strictly liable for the torts committed with the firearms they sold.

    They should have been more careful in choosing their customers, no?
    No, customers are not your agent in any sense.
    You didn't sell your company, you hired someone to run it for you.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No, customers are not your agent in any sense.
    You didn't sell your company, you hired someone to run it for you.
    The concept of agency (which requires control) becomes meaningless in many corporate contexts.

    A 1/100,000,000th owner of Exxon has exactly as much control over Exxon officers as Bob of Bob's Guns has over his customers post-sale.

    i.e. none whatsoever
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The concept of agency (which requires control) becomes meaningless in many corporate contexts.

    A 1/100,000,000th owner of Exxon has exactly as much control over Exxon officers as Bob of Bob's Guns has over his customers post-sale.

    i.e. none whatsoever
    Then he shouldn't vote in corporate elections and in my system he will not be responsible.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The concept of agency (which requires control) becomes meaningless in many corporate contexts.

    A 1/100,000,000th owner of Exxon has exactly as much control over Exxon officers as Bob of Bob's Guns has over his customers post-sale.

    i.e. none whatsoever
    And assuming that not all shareholders vote and not all of them vote for the winners he would only be responsible for something like 1/1,000,000th of any liability at most if he does vote.
    That's not much of an injustice for someone who chose to vote when he didn't have to.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Then he shouldn't vote in corporate elections and in my system he will not be responsible.
    But suppose he does?

    Isn't is unjust to hold him responsible?

    All he did was provide (a very small part of) the means with which the tort was committed (e.g. financed 1/100,000,000th of the defective oil rig).

    This is all Bob did: provide the means (the gun) with which the tort was committed.

    Neither knew or had any reason to know that their action would result in harm to anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And assuming that not all shareholders vote and not all of them vote for the winners he would only be responsible for something like 1/1,000,000th of any liability at most if he does vote.
    That's not much of an injustice for someone who chose to vote when he didn't have to.
    It's not much of an injustice, but it's still an injustice.

    The reality is that tort victims don't always get compensated because the people responsible don't have the funds.

    You don't improve the situation by looting innocent people to cover the difference.

    If the officers/whoever-is-actually-responsible don't have the funds to cover the damage they caused, so be it.

    If a homeless person burns down your house, you don't seize your neighbor's house to make yourself whole - that's just another wrong.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    But suppose he does?

    Isn't is unjust to hold him responsible?

    All he did was provide (a very small part of) the means with which the tort was committed (e.g. financed 1/100,000,000th of the defective oil rig).

    This is all Bob did: provide the means (the gun) with which the tort was committed.

    Neither knew or had any reason to know that their action would result in harm to anyone.



    It's not much of an injustice, but it's still an injustice.

    The reality is that tort victims don't always get compensated because the people responsible don't have the funds.

    You don't improve the situation by looting innocent people to cover the difference.

    If the officers/whoever-is-actually-responsible don't have the funds to cover the damage they caused, so be it.

    If a homeless person burns down your house, you don't seize your neighbor's house to make yourself whole - that's just another wrong.
    If he voted in the corporate election and his side won then he isn't innocent and he didn't just provide money.
    His responsibility may be tiny but it exists and the amount he will be held liable for is proportionately tiny.
    If the directors or management or employees mislead him about policy or behaved in obviously inappropriate ways like committing crimes deliberately then that can be taken into consideration though.

    It's not like taking a neighbor's house because a bum burned yours down, it's like sending the hospital bill to the owner of the dog that bit you.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If he voted in the corporate election and his side won then he isn't innocent and he didn't just provide money.
    His responsibility may be tiny but it exists and the amount he will be held liable for is proportionately tiny.
    And Bob chose his customer.

    If anything, Bob had more influence on whether or not the tort would occur than the tiny shareholder.

    Bob had total discretion in choosing to whom to sell the gun; the shareholder cast a meaningless vote that affected nothing.

    It's not like taking a neighbor's house because a bum burned yours down, it's like sending the hospital bill to the owner of the dog that bit you.
    ...more like sending the hospital bill to the guy who sold the dog to the owner, or to the owner whose dog was let out by a third party.

    If your goal is to deter corporate misbehavior, you don't need to hold the tiny shareholder responsible.

    If the guy responsible only has $10,000 to his name, and the damages are $100 billion, he's still going to lose everything.

    He couldn't possibly be more deterred than he is, no matter that most of the damages won't be paid.

    Whether the tiny shareholder is also required to pay damages has no effect on whether the tort occurs.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And Bob chose his customer.

    If anything, Bob had more influence on whether or not the tort would occur than the tiny shareholder.

    Bob had total discretion in choosing to whom to sell the gun; the shareholder cast a meaningless vote that affected nothing.
    Bob did not choose his customer, he was in business and doesn't necessarily know anything about his customer and has no duty to know anything about the customer.
    Bob is like a stockholder who didn't vote in the corporate election or a bondholder, each of them engaged in a simple business transaction rather than a delegation of power.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...more like sending the hospital bill to the guy who sold the dog to the owner, or to the owner whose dog was let out by a third party.
    How so?
    We aren't holding them responsible for the actions of an unrelated 3rd party nor are we holding the executive placement service responsible.
    The directors, management and employees are the agents of the owners and we are only discussing those owners who voted in and won the last corporate election.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If your goal is to deter corporate misbehavior, you don't need to hold the tiny shareholder responsible.

    If the guy responsible only has $10,000 to his name, and the damages are $100 billion, he's still going to lose everything.

    He couldn't possibly be more deterred than he is, no matter that most of the damages won't be paid.

    Whether the tiny shareholder is also required to pay damages has no effect on whether the tort occurs.
    Then he shouldn't vote in corporate elections.
    If my proposal was law then I very much doubt that people who owned tiny percentages and knew nothing about the director candidates would vote in corporate elections.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Bob did not choose his customer, he was in business and doesn't necessarily know anything about his customer and has no duty to know anything about the customer.
    ...exactly like the tiny shareholder.

    Bob is like a stockholder who didn't vote in the corporate election or a bondholder, each of them engaged in a simple business transaction rather than a delegation of power.
    Bob is more like a dominant shareholder who personally chose a director (who then went rogue, through no fault of Bob's).

    How so?
    We aren't holding them responsible for the actions of an unrelated 3rd party nor are we holding the executive placement service responsible.
    The directors, management and employees are the agents of the owners and we are only discussing those owners who voted in and won the last corporate election.
    ...except they aren't (present laws to the contrary notwithstanding), for reasons explained (total lack of control).

    Then he shouldn't vote in corporate elections.
    If my proposal was law then I very much doubt that people who owned tiny percentages and knew nothing about the director candidates would vote in corporate elections.
    Putting aside whether any tiny shareholders would actually be caught up in your proposal, what is it meant to accomplish?

    Can you explain how it deters bad behavior?
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...exactly like the tiny shareholder.
    No, the shareholder we are discussing delegated power, it may be insignificant but it could make the difference between two candidates, especially if lots of tiny shareholders voted.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Bob is more like a dominant shareholder who personally chose a director (who then went rogue, through no fault of Bob's).
    No, Bob did not delegate any power in any way shape or form.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ...except they aren't (present laws to the contrary notwithstanding), for reasons explained (total lack of control).
    Except they are and they don't have a total lack of control, you could have a corporation with 1,000,000 shares of stock held by 1,000,000 shareholders and you would have absolutely no basis to claim that none of them had any control.
    And their extremely low level of control is compensated for by an extremely low level of responsibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Putting aside whether any tiny shareholders would actually be caught up in your proposal, what is it meant to accomplish?

    Can you explain how it deters bad behavior?
    People who don't know anything are discouraged from delegating power recklessly and those who do know what they are doing are discouraged from doing so irresponsibly because they have personal liability for their action.
    The directors and other employees will behave better for fear of being fired by the owners (who will be more likely to discipline them because they are liable for damage) and not being hired by any other set of owners and thereby less damage will be done and less people will be victimized.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No, the shareholder we are discussing delegated power, it may be insignificant but it could make the difference between to candidates, especially if lots of tiny shareholders voted.
    For contract purposes, it makes sense to talk about a delegation of power as to the property which the shareholder contributed ("here's my money, use it for the purposes laid out in the charter"). For tort purposes, i.e. for the purpose of figuring out who PHYSICALLY CAUSED the harm in question, it makes no sense to talk about the power of the tiny shareholder. He has none. Had he never been born, events would have played out in exactly the same way.

    No, Bob did not delegate any power in any way shape or form.
    That's right; he simply gave someone property, like the shareholder.

    The only difference is that Bob had more control over who was going to be using that property.

    Except they are and they don't have a total lack of control, you could have a corporation with 1,000,000 shares of stock held by 1,000,000 shareholders and you would have absolutely no basis to claim that none of them had any control.
    Such a corporation would never exist, but, if it did, none of them should be held liable.

    Only the directors etc who made the decisions should be liable.

    The directors and other employees will behave better for fear of being fired by the owners (who will be more likely to discipline them because they are liable for damage) and not being hired by any other set of owners and thereby less damage will be done and less people will be victimized.
    The person directly responsible doesn't need any additional incentive; he's facing personal liability, the same as any ordinary mugger, thief, etc.

    Why is that not sufficient here if it's sufficient in every non-corporate situation?

    As for the shareholders, they have incentive to prevent torts even without personal liability: i.e. protecting the value of their shares.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    For contract purposes, it makes sense to talk about a delegation of power as to the property which the shareholder contributed ("here's my money, use it for the purposes laid out in the charter"). For tort purposes, i.e. for the purpose of figuring out who PHYSICALLY CAUSED the harm in question, it makes no sense to talk about the power of the tiny shareholder. He has none. Had he never been born, events would have played out in exactly the same way.
    Ownership is ownership.
    By your logic the owner of a vicious dog shouldn't be liable for the doctor bills of those bitten.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's right; he simply gave someone property, like the shareholder.

    The only difference is that Bob had more control over who was going to be using that property.
    Not like the shareholder, he doesn't retain ownership of the gun and then delegate the power to use it in his name to someone.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Such a corporation would never exist, but, if it did, none of them should be held liable.

    Only the directors etc who made the decisions should be liable.
    You could hold the directors liable first but if their assets are insufficient then those shareholders who voted for them should be accountable.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The person directly responsible doesn't need any additional incentive; he's facing personal liability, the same as any ordinary mugger, thief, etc.
    It doesn't work when they know they can keep their job and/or get another, our current system is broken and it is because owners can limit their liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why is that not sufficient here if it's sufficient in every non-corporate situation?
    In non-corporate situations owners are liable for the actions of their agents.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As for the shareholders, they have incentive to prevent torts even without personal liability: i.e. protecting the value of their shares.
    It's an artificially reduced incentive that has warped their behavior and that of their employees.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #74
    @Swordsmyth

    As to the moral question of who can justly be held liable:

    Mere ownership of property involved in a harm shouldn't confer liability. E.G. If a dog bites someone, the owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's the owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he left the gate open and allowed the dog to escape the yard). Or, if a tree is knocked down in a storm and falls on the neighbor's house, the tree's owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's the owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he was ineptly cutting down the tree when it fell). If an oil rig explodes and spills oil, an owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's an owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he pushed the decision to use known-to-be-defective parts to save money).

    As to the practical question of deterrence:

    Let's say the standard tort liability is double the cost of the harm ("two teeth for a tooth," as Rothbard put it). If that's enough to deter ordinary torts (e.g. you ineptly cutting down a tree), then there's no reason (and you've provided none) to think it won't deter torts by corporate agents (e.g. directors voting to use defective bolts to build the oil rig). And if it isn't enough, the solution is to increase the liability for the people actually responsible (e.g. go to triple the cost of the harm), not to impose liability on innocent people to indirectly influence the people responsible, as you propose. Further, you need to appreciate that shareholders under the system I'm proposing would still have a direct financial interest in preventing corporate torts: namely, maintaining the value of their shares.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-27-2019 at 07:31 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @Swordsmyth

    As to the moral question of who can justly be held liable:

    Mere ownership of property involved in a harm shouldn't confer liability. E.G. If a dog bites someone, the owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's the owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he left the gate open and allowed the dog to escape the yard). Or, if a tree is knocked down in a storm and falls on the neighbor's house, the tree's owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's the owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he was ineptly cutting down the tree when it fell). If an oil rig explodes and spills oil, an owner shouldn't be liable simply because he's an owner; he should only be liable if his action (or inaction) was the proximate cause of the harm (e.g. he pushed the decision to use known-to-be-defective parts to save money).
    So if a man's dog digs a hole under his fence and runs down the street biting people they are just out of luck and have to pay for their own medical care?
    What if a man's child breaks his neighbor's window?
    If the corporation is in no way responsible then nobody connected to it in any way should be held liable but if the corporation is responsible then owners who delegate power should be held liable along with the directors, management and any employees who participated in the responsible act.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As to the practical question of deterrence:

    Let's say the standard tort liability is double the cost of the harm ("two teeth for a tooth," as Rothbard put it). If that's enough to deter ordinary torts (e.g. you ineptly cutting down a tree), then there's no reason (and you've provided none) to think it won't deter torts by corporate agents (e.g. directors voting to use defective bolts to build the oil rig). And if it isn't enough, the solution is to increase the liability for the people actually responsible (e.g. go to triple the cost of the harm), not to impose liability on innocent people to indirectly influence the people responsible, as you propose. Further, you need to appreciate that shareholders under the system I'm proposing would still have a direct financial interest in preventing corporate torts: namely, maintaining the value of their shares.
    Under your rules only the employees directly involved with the incident could be held liable, the corporation itself and the directors and managers would be immune.
    But ownership implies responsibility (especially if the owner exerts any control like voting for the directors) and if we limited liability to only those involved in the actual incident then very often they would not be able to pay what was required to compensate the victims.

    Current law allows LIMITED liability and that limit is artificial and in need of reform because it distorts behavior and denies justice to the victims in many cases.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    So if a man's dog digs a hole under his fence and runs down the street biting people they are just out of luck and have to pay for their own medical care?
    Unless you can show that the man acted negligently (e.g. a prudent person would have built the fence in such a way as to prevent this), yes.

    Not every harm is a tort.

    What if a man's child breaks his neighbor's window?
    The same principle applies - did the man do anything negligent?

    If the corporation is in no way responsible then nobody connected to it in any way should be held liable but if the corporation is responsible then owners who delegate power should be held liable along with the directors, management and any employees who participated in the responsible act.
    Forget about "the corporation" as such. It's a legal fiction, a word used to describe a group of individuals connected to one another by complex contractual relations. Think about those individuals. Who actually did what? Start at the harm and work back through the causation. Worker Bob installed the bad bolt, and Manager John told him to do it, and junior executive Steve told him to use these particular bolts, and so on. The guilty are those who either knew or should have known that harm was likely to result from the use of these bolts; everyone else is innocent.

    Under your rules only the employees directly involved with the incident could be held liable, the corporation itself and the directors and managers would be immune.
    No, see above.

    But ownership implies responsibility (especially if the owner exerts any control like voting for the directors) and if we limited liability to only those involved in the actual incident then very often they would not be able to pay what was required to compensate the victims.
    If the people actually responsible (which may well go beyond the first guy in the causal chain, as explained above) don't have the resources to pay the damages, that's tough luck. What if a homeless guy burns down your house? Tough luck. Victims have a right to extract compensation from the perpetrators, not to be made whole by random third parties.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-27-2019 at 08:46 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    These people, in resolving disputes, in fact "make up" the law.

    "The law" isn't an entity that comes down from heaven and affects human beings.
    I hadn't pegged you for a hardened atheist.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I hadn't pegged you for a hardened atheist.
    I don't know what that has to do with anything.

    Christians don't think that the deity comes down and forces judges to make good decisions.

    They take the position, as I do, that judges, like all human beings, have free will and make whatever decisions they want.

    This contrasts with the idea that there is some nebulous/mystical/divine Law which somehow keeps the judges in line.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-27-2019 at 09:31 PM.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. [VIDEO] The Case for Free Market Intervention (Pro-Market Argument)
    By AlexMerced in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2012, 09:07 AM
  2. Free Market vs. Controlled Market [POLL]
    By eOs in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 03:10 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2008, 02:16 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:26 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •