Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Labor Pains In Colorado
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 46 of 166 (656541)
03-19-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Perdition
03-19-2012 5:01 PM


Assuming both get 40 hours, they may be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment. Of course, that assumes they don't eat food, don't buy any toys or clothes for themselves or their kid(s), have free transportation to everywhere they need to go, don't need electricity, water, heat, or a phone...
That's also assuming they have a family member who will watch the children for free or for a very reasonable cost, what with them both working constantly just to not be on the streets. Sure, they could get jobs that have precisely opposite work hours, but how, exactly, easy is that?
I love how everyone gets up in arms about how easy it is to be poor and how there is such a hatred towards the lower class, yet it's the "other guys" at the opposite end of the income spectrum that decide our economy.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2012 5:01 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 03-19-2012 6:08 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 47 of 166 (656542)
03-19-2012 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by hooah212002
03-19-2012 6:01 PM


Damn Gubbmint
The problem is the Liberal Overlords that tell folk they can't put them kids to useful work. There are lots of jobs out there for them kids if only the Liberal Crybabies didn't conspire to keep them out of the work force.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by hooah212002, posted 03-19-2012 6:01 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 48 of 166 (656599)
03-20-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Perdition
03-19-2012 5:01 PM


you are assuming a bunch of things as well?
Single parents aren't a family?
nope.
A spouse that is unable to work, for whatever reason, suddenly makes them not a family?
if you are unable to work you should qualify for disablilty, and housing assistance, and therefore are not part of this dilemma.
Assuming both get 40 hours, they may be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment. Of course, that assumes they don't eat food, don't buy any toys or clothes for themselves or their kid(s), have free transportation to everywhere they need to go, don't need electricity, water, heat, or a phone...
if you are working for minimum wage and have children you are probably retarded, and probably a bad irresponsible parent.
GW has affordable clothing.
there is always assistance link card, etc.
talk about assumptions, HA!
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Perdition, posted 03-19-2012 5:01 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 2:22 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 49 of 166 (656601)
03-20-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
03-20-2012 2:15 PM


nope.
Why not?
if you are unable to work you should qualify for disablilty, and housing assistance, and therefore are not part of this dilemma.
Assuming you can't work due to a disability. What if there just aren't any jobs in your area? What if the only jobs that will hire you will pay you less than it would cost to put your child in daycare?
if you are working for minimum wage and have children you are probably retarded, and probably a bad irresponsible parent.
Or live in an economically depressed area.
But even if they are, you're willing to punish the children because their parents are "retarded" or "irresponsible"?
GW has affordable clothing.
But not free. If all your money pays rent and utilities, there's no such thing as "affordable" clothing.
there is always assistance link card, etc.
I have no idea what this is.
talk about assumptions, HA!
Yeah, I see you making a lot of them in this post alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-20-2012 2:15 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:36 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 152 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-27-2012 4:46 PM Perdition has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 50 of 166 (656604)
03-20-2012 2:28 PM


What's the point of minimum wage?
I didn't think it was the minimum wage on which you could support a family in a two bedroom appartment...
I've always seen it as the least amount of money you can pay teenagers
Do people honestly think that the point of it is to be the minimum amount you can raise a family on?
It seems to me that amount would be significantly higher than what the current miminum wage is. If you raise the minimum wage to be that amount, I think it'd mess up a lot of stuff. But I don't think that's the point of it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 166 (656606)
03-20-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Perdition
03-20-2012 2:22 PM


you're willing to punish the children because their parents are "retarded" or "irresponsible"?
You could spin anything that you don't want some other parents to do into being a punishment for their children.
"ZOMG! You're letting your neighbor punish their children by sending them to sunday school and not letting them play video games all day!? What's wrong with you?"
What if there just aren't any jobs in your area?
Then the minimum-ness of the wage you're not getting doesn't matter. And actually, maybe if the mimimum wage was lower, somebody could afford to employ you... But if they gotta pay you enough to afford a two-bedroom appartment, I could see why nobody would want to hire.
What if the only jobs that will hire you will pay you less than it would cost to put your child in daycare?
People should think about the consequences of their actions. Bailing them out every time they don't doesn't promote that.

Adding in a reply to Message 52 so we don't get cross-posted:
When people are foced to try just that, don't you think it should be?
Hell no. Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get educated doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B.
Aside from the fact that there are some teenagers who are trying to raise families, there is an easy solution: a tiered minimum wage from 15 (or youngest age someone can work) through 18, at which point the full adult minimum is enforced.
That could work. Or we could promote the idea that people shouldn't rely on the mimimun wage to raise their families on.
There is an argument that it would cause inflation, making everything cost more, thus making the wage increase disappear, or necessitate an "arms race" of wage increases followed by cost increases followed by wage increases ad infinitum.
Of course. How could a hamburger cost a dollar if you gotta pay the kid $20/hr to flip them?
I'm not an economist, but that seems to be bullshit when corporations can post billions or trillions of dollars in profit. Now, maybe it will affect the small businesses, but tax breaks or incentives might be able to offset the "burden" of paying your employees enough to be able to survive somewhat comfortably on.
I'm not willing to pay $5 a tomato at the local farmers market because the kids stocking the shelves there are getting paid $20/hr. Too, if every Wal*Mart employee had to make $20/hr, then 1) they're be less people emloyed, and 2) everything wouldn't be so cheap. And then it just cost more to buy all the shit you need to raise a family!
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 2:22 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 3:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 61 by Jon, posted 03-20-2012 10:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 52 of 166 (656607)
03-20-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 2:28 PM


Re: What's the point of minimum wage?
Do people honestly think that the point of it is to be the minimum amount you can raise a family on?
When people are foced to try just that, don't you think it should be?
I've always seen it as the least amount of money you can pay teenagers
Aside from the fact that there are some teenagers who are trying to raise families, there is an easy solution: a tiered minimum wage from 15 (or youngest age someone can work) through 18, at which point the full adult minimum is enforced.
It seems to me that amount would be significantly higher than what the current miminum wage is. If you raise the minimum wage to be that amount, I think it'd mess up a lot of stuff. But I don't think that's the point of it.
There is an argument that it would cause inflation, making everything cost more, thus making the wage increase disappear, or necessitate an "arms race" of wage increases followed by cost increases followed by wage increases ad infinitum.
I'm not an economist, but that seems to be bullshit when corporations can post billions or trillions of dollars in profit. Now, maybe it will affect the small businesses, but tax breaks or incentives might be able to offset the "burden" of paying your employees enough to be able to survive somewhat comfortably on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:42 PM Perdition has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 166 (656609)
03-20-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Perdition
03-20-2012 2:36 PM


Re: What's the point of minimum wage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 2:36 PM Perdition has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 54 of 166 (656615)
03-20-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 2:36 PM


You could spin anything that you don't want some other parents to do into being a punishment for their children.
You could but if you allow parents to raise their children as they wish (within the law) then making them go to Sunday school, and being forced to work a job that doesn't pay enough to feed, clothe, and care for children is a much different issue.
Then the minimum-ness of the wage you're not getting doesn't matter. And actually, maybe if the mimimum wage was lower, somebody could afford to employ you... But if they gotta pay you enough to afford a two-bedroom appartment, I could see why nobody would want to hire.
My response was to Arty's saying that a single income family, with two parents would necessarily be receiving some sort of disability pay. The minimum wage may not be affecting the unemployed parent, but it certainly does affect the employed one.
People should think about the consequences of their actions. Bailing them out every time they don't doesn't promote that.
In my scenario, they were. They were realizing that the consequences of working would mean a net loss of income, which is a pretty poor situation to be in.
If you mean they shouldn't have children, then you're pretty much consigning most people to not having children, as it is possible for just about anyone to lose a job due to unforeseen circumstances.
Hell no. Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get educated doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B.
When did education enter into this. There are plenty of educated people who are forced to work a minimum wage job and raise their family on that. My wife has a Master's degree and I have a Bachelor's degree. We're both working jobs that only require a high school diploma because there are no other jobs available for us. We're lucky enough to be making more than minimum wage, but I can't imagine any family trying to get by on less than we make. We pretty much live paycheck to paycheck as it is.
That could work. Or we could promote the idea that people shouldn't rely on the mimimun wage to raise their families on.
That would be great, if they had any say in it. That would require stronger unions, and the trend in this country is the opposite direction. There will always be someone willing to do your job for less thsan you're getting paid to do it. Without the minimum wage, pay would drop drastically.
Of course. How could a hamburger cost a dollar if you gotta pay the kid $20/hr to flip them?
Well, you could sell 20 hamburgers. Or the "kid" flipping them could be making the 16-year-old minimum wage. Or the minimum wage could be less than $20/hr, but still more than $7.25.
I'm not willing to pay $5 a tomato at the local farmers market because the kids stocking the shelves there are getting paid $20/hr. Too, if every Wal*Mart employee had to make $20/hr, then 1) they're be less people emloyed, and 2) everything wouldn't be so cheap. And then it just cost more to buy all the shit you need to raise a family!
I used to work at a grocery store. It helped me pay my way through college. It was and is a union shop. I got paid very well. Starting wage was almost a dollar over minimum wage, and I eventually got up to close to $15/hr. The prices at this store are less than the cost at almost every other store in the area. They do this by buying in bluk, and having a single warehouse in southern WI and then shipping the items to the stores around WI and IL.
In fact, my cousin and I made up a "shopping list" of the things we buy most commonly. The cost of shopping here ended up being less than even shopping at Wal-Mart. So higher wages doesn't translate to higher prices if the person in charge of the business is smart and efficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:43 PM Perdition has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 166 (656618)
03-20-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Perdition
03-20-2012 3:12 PM


My response was to Arty's saying that a single income family, with two parents would necessarily be receiving some sort of disability pay.
I think that's 'cause you said they were "unable to work"... but whatever.
When did education enter into this.
Minimum wage is typically reserved for "unskilled" positions.
There are plenty of educated people who are forced to work a minimum wage job and raise their family on that.
Really? Where?
'Round here, those people go on unemployment or disability instead.
there are no other jobs available for us.
You might outta think about moving...
That would be great, if they had any say in it.
They do; at the ballot.
There will always be someone willing to do your job for less thsan you're getting paid to do it. Without the minimum wage, pay would drop drastically.
For the record, I'm not promoting the elimination of minimum wage. I just think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on.
Well, you could sell 20 hamburgers.
20 hamburgers you got for free and made in a building with no overhead...
Or the "kid" flipping them could be making the 16-year-old minimum wage. Or the minimum wage could be less than $20/hr, but still more than $7.25.
Sure, but "$20/hr" is just a place holder for some amount needed to raise a family on...
So higher wages doesn't translate to higher prices if the person in charge of the business is smart and efficient.
And by "efficient" you mean "employs less people".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 3:12 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 4:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 56 of 166 (656621)
03-20-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 3:43 PM


Minimum wage is typically reserved for "unskilled" positions.
Education doesn't necessarily result in "skills." If you get a liberal arts degree, then try to market that in the business world, you'll get doors slammed in your face faster than you'd ever have thought possible.
It seems more and more like the only higher education that matters any more is business or a tech college. This is vastly different from how it was in my parent's generation, and not how college was sold to me. Had I known then what I know now, I would have made different choices in my college career.
Really? Where?
Smaller towns or rural areas.
'Round here, those people go on unemployment or disability instead.
Unemployment is temporary, and isn't great income even so. As for disability, they tend to require you have, you know, a disability.
You might outta think about moving...
We've considered it, but for one thing, our family is here, our friends are here. It costs money to move. And my wife has been applying around the country in her field, but there aren't tons of openings, and they tend to have very low starting pay. She has back issues, and would need either more pay, or health insurance right away instead of trying to suffer through 6 months or a year.
They do; at the ballot.
You mean voting in people who will raise the minimum wage?
Otherwise, how does an elected official have any say on how much a person gets paid?
For the record, I'm not promoting the elimination of minimum wage. I just think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on.
I agree, in an ideal situation, minimum wage would go to people starting out in the workforce, and by the time they have a family, they'd have received promotions and raises commensurate with their changing status in life. Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works.
20 hamburgers you got for free and made in a building with no overhead...
Well, there's an easy solution to the rat problem in that abandoned building down by the docks...
But most fast food places make more than $20 an hour in sales, by far, and I'm not advocating a $20/hr minimum wage.
And by "efficient" you mean "employs less people".
Than what? There are a lot of people emplyed at the store. It's open 24 hours, so there's three shifts. There are a lot of younger people working part-time. It may not have "greeters" like Wal-Mart, but to be honest, I never understood their use anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 4:39 PM Perdition has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 166 (656628)
03-20-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Perdition
03-20-2012 4:00 PM


Education doesn't necessarily result in "skills."
Fine:
Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get skills doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B.
If you get a liberal arts degree, then try to market that in the business world,
...then you're a moron.
you'll get doors slammed in your face faster than you'd ever have thought possible.
For being a moron.
It seems more and more like the only higher education that matters any more is business or a tech college.
And science and engineering.
This is vastly different from how it was in my parent's generation, and not how college was sold to me.
The fact that it was being sold to me made me realize that it wasn't exactly how it was being promoted. But yeah, after graduation when the real world hits you, you realize that there's a lot more to it than being handed a degree and then being handed a job. In fact, almost nothing is handed to you. You have to go get it. People need to learn this fact.
Smaller towns or rural areas.
Well yeah, that makes sense. There's not a whole lot going on out there.
Unemployment is temporary, and isn't great income even so. As for disability, they tend to require you have, you know, a disability.
Oh, you'd be suprised...
I agree, in an ideal situation, minimum wage would go to people starting out in the workforce, and by the time they have a family, they'd have received promotions and raises commensurate with their changing status in life. Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works.
Yeah, and the 'unfortune' is going to land at the feet of the people who are relying on minimum wage to support their family. I guess I can understand why they're not stoked about it, but I still don't see that as a reason to raise minimum wage.
And too, there's the moral hazard of correcting people's mistakes by removing the consequences - which is what this looks like to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 4:00 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 58 of 166 (656633)
03-20-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 4:39 PM


And too, there's the moral hazard of correcting people's mistakes by removing the consequences - which is what this looks like to me.
If it just affected the person who made the mistake, you might have a point there. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could understand it. The issue is families, people with kids who didn't make the mistake, are the ones being affected.
Just because Dude A was too stupid to cover his dick and get skills doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to afford to hire Dude B.
If you want to hire Dude B and pay him less than he needs to live, then you probably shouldn't be able to hire anyone. Jobs are only a good thing if they do two things, provide a needed or desired service AND pay the employee enough to live a comfortable life.
If Dude B can live on a lower payment than Dude A, for whatever reason, then great, he's going to get more than he feels he needs.
You said you're not against minimum wage, just raising it. If the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage should as well, otherwise, the minimum wage isn't doing anything any more. The point of the minimum wage was to protect people who couldn't afford to underbid everyone else just to get a job, but now we're at the point where people can't afford to underbid people to get a job, even if the job is paying a bit more than minimum wage. So, as it is, it isn't doing what it was supposed to do. The options then become, leaving it alone and ineffective, removing it, or adjusting it so it can do its job. To me, the worst option is the second one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 5:04 PM Perdition has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 59 of 166 (656635)
03-20-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Perdition
03-20-2012 4:51 PM


If it just affected the person who made the mistake, you might have a point there. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could understand it. The issue is families, people with kids who didn't make the mistake, are the ones being affected.
Yes, children are affected by the mistakes their families have made. We can't just whisk all the poor kids off to Disney World. Life isn't fair.
If you want to hire Dude B and pay him less than he needs to live, then you probably shouldn't be able to hire anyone. Jobs are only a good thing if they do two things, provide a needed or desired service AND pay the employee enough to live a comfortable life.
No, flipping burgers at Wendy's has never been intended to be a job that will allow you to live a confortable life. Why do you think it is or should be?
The point is, though, that raising minimum wage because it isn't high enough for somebody to raise a family on isn't fair to both the employers and the employees who want to have position that aren't relied on for raising families.
You said you're not against minimum wage, just raising it.
I'm not even against raising it: i think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on.
The point of the minimum wage was to protect people who couldn't afford to underbid everyone else just to get a job, but now we're at the point where people can't afford to underbid people to get a job, even if the job is paying a bit more than minimum wage.
Wait, what? Seriously, I'm not getting this point.
So, as it is, it isn't doing what it was supposed to do. The options then become, leaving it alone and ineffective, removing it, or adjusting it so it can do its job. To me, the worst option is the second one.
Too, we could promote the idea that minimum wage isn't supposed to be something you capable of raising a family on. Arguing that the minimum wage sucks because it isn't enough to raise a family on is counter-productive, in my arrogant opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 4:51 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(2)
Message 60 of 166 (656645)
03-20-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 5:04 PM


Yes, children are affected by the mistakes their families have made. We can't just whisk all the poor kids off to Disney World. Life isn't fair.
No, it isn't. But I do think there should be a little help for those who have made mistakes or whose parents made mistakes. A minimum standard of living should be granted to people based purely on the fact that they're human beings. I include a livable wage, medical care, and education in that minimum.
No, flipping burgers at Wendy's has never been intended to be a job that will allow you to live a confortable life. Why do you think it is or should be?
I don't think it should be the job that someone is relegated to due to conditions, but unfortunately, sometimes it is.
The point is, though, that raising minimum wage because it isn't high enough for somebody to raise a family on isn't fair to both the employers and the employees who want to have position that aren't relied on for raising families.
But which jobs are those? There are jobs you don't think people should try to raise a family by doing, but what do you say to those who have no other option? Tough luck?
I'm not even against raising it: i think its silly to consider it something to raise a family on.
Again, I agree that this shouldn't be the case, but especially during the past recession, these were the jobs that were available. People can't just stop raising a family because the economy decides to take a nose dive.
Wait, what? Seriously, I'm not getting this point.
One of the major reasons put forth in creating a minimum wage was the prevalence of sweatshops, where people were paid very poorly for doing work, and the fact that people were willing to do work for which they got paid very little. If Bob wants to have a job to start a family, but Joe doesn't want a family and can work for half the price of Bob, what's Bob supposed to do? Should he just give up on having a family and agree to work at the same pay as Joe? If a company can find people to work for less, those are the people they will hire. The minimum wage, in part, protects those who can't afford to be paid less.
The problem is, when many people can't afford to be paid minimum wage, you're back to the same issue, only now the companies can claim they're just following the law.
Too, we could promote the idea that minimum wage isn't supposed to be something you capable of raising a family on. Arguing that the minimum wage sucks because it isn't enough to raise a family on is counter-productive, in my arrogant opinion.
I doubt there is anyone out there who wants to raise a family on minimum wage. The fact remains that for many, that is the only option. Govermental policies should reflect the actual state of things, even if they work to change that state, rather than stubbornly saying that things aren't how they should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jon, posted 03-20-2012 10:31 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:32 AM Perdition has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024