Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 136 (263385)
11-26-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
11-26-2005 5:38 PM


Re: is it society's problem?
Like Melange?
Can anyone deny that this would present a compelling issue to society, and strict control of this substance might be a good idea?
Sure, depends on the substance, benefits and costs involved in prohibition or control.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 5:38 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 136 (263386)
11-26-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
11-26-2005 5:18 PM


Drugs that are taken because one is "bored" are the most dangerous type.
Are they? Our rules in regards to recreational drugs don't seem to be very consistent, if we use harm as a metric. For instance, hundreds (or more) die every year from alcohol poisoning or the physiological toll of years of drinking; marijuana doesn't have those side-effects. A fair number of the side-effects of a lot of illegal drugs stem not from the active drug itself but the sundry chemicals that are invariably introduced into the mixture simply because their illegality mandates that they be prepared outside of a safe laboratory setting.
I've been high on pot, and I've been on Celexa and Welbutrin for depression. I had way worse side-effects from the anti-depressants.
What you're supposed to do when you are bored is find something to do.
Well, why not do drugs? I don't understand why you find that to be a less legitimate activity than, say, an active sport or a good book. Seems like all three of those things accomplish about the same thing, which is to say, nothing.
And besides, "anxiety" is something that interferes with one's functioning in society. "Boredom" is a product of a lack of imagination.
Well, anxiety may simply be too much imagination, it's not clear to me that anxiety is any more pathogenic or appropriately treated with pharmacology than boredom is. Boredom can interfere with your functioning in society, too.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to perscribe drugs for one fake problem and not another. And what do you suppose those anti-anxiety drugs make you feel like? Probably relaxed, good, open to trying new things, maybe a little gregarious - in other words, exactly like being high. Because they make you high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 5:18 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 136 (263387)
11-26-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by macaroniandcheese
11-26-2005 2:08 PM


Re: ADHD
quote:
bad drivers tend to be flighty, self-centered idiots.
If the insurance tables are right, bad drivers are likely to be young agressive, and testosterone-soaked, or inexperienced teenagers who are just not as skilled as others yet, or elderly people who's skills and awareness have declined.
Or they are people who talk on their cell phones while driving.
I'm not sure all of those people are flighty.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-26-2005 05:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-26-2005 2:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 1:47 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 136 (263389)
11-26-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mick
11-26-2005 3:49 PM


Re: tough love...
quote:
but when we have figures like "50% of domestic violence in France inolves alcohol use" it looks like there is a problem in more than than the minority of cases.
Well, alcohol lowers inhibitions, so the violence might be coming from someone who is violent anyway.
OTOH, you don't really hear of a lot of domestic violence being connected to pot smoking, which tends to make people giggle and feel relaxed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mick, posted 11-26-2005 3:49 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 6:01 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 136 (263390)
11-26-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
11-26-2005 5:53 PM


Re: tough love...
OTOH, you don't really hear of a lot of domestic violence being connected to pot smoking, which tends to make people giggle and feel relaxed.
And listen to Fleetwood Mac. So, you know, watch out for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 5:53 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 136 (263392)
11-26-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
11-26-2005 5:46 PM


quote:
Are they? Our rules in regards to recreational drugs don't seem to be very consistent, if we use harm as a metric.
Well, I wasn't talking about laws or rules...
quote:
For instance, hundreds (or more) die every year from alcohol poisoning or the physiological toll of years of drinking; marijuana doesn't have those side-effects.
Oh, I agree that this is probably the case, but the unfortunate thing is that we don't have much in the way of research to back this up, as the US won't fund such research. Are there any studies about, say, cancer rates in frequent pot smokers from other countries?
quote:
A fair number of the side-effects of a lot of illegal drugs stem not from the active drug itself but the sundry chemicals that are invariably introduced into the mixture simply because their illegality mandates that they be prepared outside of a safe laboratory setting.
Again, I wasn't really talking about "danger" as in "physically bad for you".
quote:
I've been high on pot, and I've been on Celexa and Welbutrin for depression. I had way worse side-effects from the anti-depressants.
Well, I've never been under the influence of any of those substances, but I know people who have been. Some of them do fine on any of them, some of them really liked pot, and some of them really hated pot.
quote:
Well, why not do drugs? I don't understand why you find that to be a less legitimate activity than, say, an active sport or a good book. Seems like all three of those things accomplish about the same thing, which is to say, nothing.
Books exercise the mind, sport exercises the body. Drugs do neither, for the most part, and can be harmful in the short or long term.
Recreational drugs in a social context I can understand. But getting high on something all by oneself, just because one is bored, seems to be sort of pathetic.
Look, I understand escapeism, and I understand pure recreation, and I honestly don't really care what people do as long as they don't hurt anyone else. All of this is my personal opinion, really.
quote:
Well, anxiety may simply be too much imagination, it's not clear to me that anxiety is any more pathogenic or appropriately treated with pharmacology than boredom is.
I think anxiety is more than that. I think anxiety is linked to obsessive behavir and thought, which is different from just having a good or vivid or active imagination.
Indeed, a lot of what people with anxiety disorders report is replaying terrible events from their lives over and over in their minds to the exlusion of other things, which seems like the opposite of imagination to me.
quote:
Boredom can interfere with your functioning in society, too.
But getting high all the time when you are bored is probably not going to make you less bored in the long run. Temporary inebriation is no substitute for a stimulating life that is full of intellectual, emotional, and physical exercise and challenge.
I know several pot heads. They are generally stalled people, either in their professional lives, or their emotional lives, or in their relationships, or their maturity.
quote:
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to perscribe drugs for one fake problem and not another. And what do you suppose those anti-anxiety drugs make you feel like? Probably relaxed, good, open to trying new things, maybe a little gregarious - in other words, exactly like being high. Because they make you high.
No, that's not what people tell me those drugs make you feel like. People tell me that those drugs made them feel like their old selves again.
Of course, I can get a boost like that after a great customer compliment at work, after a great talk with a friend, after sex, and I very often feel like that after a workout at the gym. That's why getting exercise is prescribed to people for anxiety and depression.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-26-2005 06:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-26-2005 6:44 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 136 (263401)
11-26-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
11-26-2005 6:14 PM


Books exercise the mind, sport exercises the body. Drugs do neither, for the most part, and can be harmful in the short or long term.
Well, what makes you think drugs can't excerise your mind? I mean, minds aren't muscles; by "excercise" I assume you mean "give you an opportunity to think about things in a new way, or learn something new." Well, what makes you think drugs can't give you an opportunity to think about things in a new way, expand your perceptions, take you on flights of fancy, or even teach you something new about yourself?
You can throw out your back or get tennis elbow too, you know.
But getting high on something all by oneself, just because one is bored, seems to be sort of pathetic.
But, say, reading isn't? Or just sitting and thinking? Or playing Nintendo? It seems to me that just about anything you do by yourself would seem pathetic and lonely; that's what "being by yourself" kind of means.
Indeed, a lot of what people with anxiety disorders report is replaying terrible events from their lives over and over in their minds to the exlusion of other things, which seems like the opposite of imagination to me
I guess I see it as imagining the same thing over an over again, when what they should be doing is to stop imagining and do something. I guess I say that from a perspective of feeling a lot of anxiety as a result of some recent personal matters, and what's killing me is what I'm imagining. When I just stop imagining those things, I feel a lot better.
People tell me that those drugs made them feel like their old selves again.
Were their old selves relaxed and gregarious?
Of course, I can get a boost like that after a great customer compliment at work, after a great talk with a friend, after sex, and I very often feel like that after a workout at the gym. That's why getting exercise is prescribed to people for anxiety and depression.
Well, great. So you get high the circuitous route, the long way; and you think it's wrong to take the more direct approach?
I should say; I don't really use drugs at all. Once or twice in a couple of years (alcohol much more often). I'm not really attracted to feeling high on anything - drugs, religion, sex, whatever. It's stillness that drives me - the stillness of meditation, of nature, of the martial arts, of companionship. Things like that. Probably why I'm neither religious nor on drugs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 6:14 PM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 53 of 136 (263456)
11-27-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
11-26-2005 5:44 PM


no. during that time people had much higher tolerances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 5:44 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 11-27-2005 9:02 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 54 of 136 (263457)
11-27-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by nator
11-26-2005 5:48 PM


Re: ADHD
no. insurance tables only reflect people who get into massively damaging and fatal accidents. they don't report fender benders. bad drivers get into fender benders. inexperienced drivers get killed.
do a study on minor accidents and see what you get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 5:48 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 11-27-2005 9:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 136 (263465)
11-27-2005 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Omnivorous
11-26-2005 5:04 PM


The law
In my book, unacceptable behavior would be such things as drunk driving or trippy flying.
That is what is currently illegal. Making a substance illegal makes it illegal to purchase, possess or manufacture it.
And are you telling me that acid is illegal?
LSD is a class A drug in the UK which means possession carries a maximum seven year sentence.
Do you wish to live in a society where every person's risk-taking is audited by the State? What a dreary world it would be if our liberties were circumscribed by the risk-costs that others will tolerate. It would spell the end of all adventure.
We already live in that world, if you think it is dreary, then so be it. Here in the UK a woman was given an ASBO for frequent suicide attempts because it was costing the emergency services a lot of taxpayers time and money and causing distress to the public.
In the end, the solution is to either pay for any damage yourself or have nobody repair said damage by excusing yourself from society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Omnivorous, posted 11-26-2005 5:04 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 11-27-2005 12:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 136 (263473)
11-27-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 1:45 AM


I found this, though
link
In summary, anecdotal and statistical evidence reveal a heavy consumption of alcoholic beverages. If the strength of the brew was quite weak, however, the effects would be minimal. Determining the strength of the alcoholic beverages consumed in the past is difficult if not impossible. To begin with wine, the maximum amount of alcohol possible is generally 15%. During the fermentation process yeast converts the sugar of the grape into alcohol; the yeast organism dies above concentrations of 15%. Grapes grown in southern Europe contain more sugar and the wine consequently more alcohol because of the warmth, while grapes grown further north contain less sugar and the wine consequently less alcohol, but in general modern European wines contain between 8 and 10% alcohol. To place this in perspective, the alcoholic content of Australian wines ranges between 11 and 13%. Because so much can go wrong in the fermentation process, some historians have argued that the primitive techniques of the past would have resulted in wines of lower alcoholic content. For example, one historian assumes that the wine consumed by the peasants of Languedoc had an alcoholic content of 5%, making it comparable to modern beer.
The strength of ale and beer is likewise difficult to determine. Today so-called ale usually has a higher alcoholic content than beer, but in the past the difference between ale and beer was the addition of hops. Ale was brewed mainly from barley, but also from wheat, oats, and millet. The resulting brew was usually sweet, had a consistency akin to soup, and kept for only several days. Beginning in the fifteenth century, some English brewers started to add hops, an import from the Low Countries, to their ale. The result was a drink that was bitter, kept longer, and was called beer; it could also be stronger because hops helped complete the brewing process. Some of the recipes for both beer and ale indicate a resulting product that would be stronger than any ale or beer consumed today. On the other hand, while the brewing of ale and beer is less complicated than the fermentation of wine, incomplete fermentation and inadequate temperatures could result in a drink that did not have as high a level of alcohol as indicated by the ingredients. By the seventeenth century, however, English brewers had mastered the processes, and they could offer to their costumers three different grades of beer, that is, with three different levels of alcohol, double beer, middle beer, and small beer. Brewers also vied with each other to produce the strongest beer, leading to complaints by moralists and officials concerned with public order.
My impression is that the levels of alcohol in both wine and ale or beer would be somewhat lower than modern levels, but not significantly lower, and perhaps not lower at all when considering beer from the seventeenth century. One possible exception to this is the ale of medieval England, which could have been quite weak in comparison to modern beer and beer from the seventeenth century. The main reason why I think that the brew was not piss weak is the widespread reports of drunkenness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 1:45 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 1:32 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 57 of 136 (263474)
11-27-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2005 1:47 AM


Re: ADHD
quote:
no. insurance tables only reflect people who get into massively damaging and fatal accidents. they don't report fender benders. bad drivers get into fender benders. inexperienced drivers get killed.
do a study on minor accidents and see what you get.
I am afraid that you are wrong.
As indicated below, filing an insurance claim (which one would do if once got into a fender bender, or were the cause of a fender bender), getting a ticket, and having a driving history of any accidents will affect your insurance rates. I couldn't find any insurance information which indicated that they didn't take allaccidents into consideration. Maybe you can provide some?
link
Several other factors impact auto insurance rates. You'll probably pay less if any of the following apply:
Your previous driving record does not include tickets, accidents and claims.
Your home address is outside an urban area where more accidents and thefts are likely to happen.
Your credit rating is high.
You are older than 25.
You are female.
You are married.
You own a make and model vehicle not prone to theft, or driven at higher speeds.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-27-2005 09:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 1:47 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2005 1:36 PM nator has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 136 (263489)
11-27-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
11-24-2005 8:50 PM


quote:
in edit: I forgot to ask the significant question: WHY THE FUCK IS ALCOHOL LEGAL?
Everything in a free world is legal, it's up to the people not to abuse freedom.

well sure as planets come, i know that they end
and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend?
please bury me with it
i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 11-24-2005 8:50 PM mick has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 59 of 136 (263491)
11-27-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
11-27-2005 8:11 AM


The law, sir, is an ass.
Modulous writes:
And are you telling me that acid is illegal?
LSD is a class A drug in the UK which means possession carries a maximum seven year sentence.
Sheesh...and they say Americans are irony-proof!
This thread began in the context of questioning why alcohol is legal. The most relevant answer is probably one of profit, both directly to producers and, indirectly via tax revenues, to governments; I suppose the violent failure of Prohibition, and Whisky Rebellions, may also have some influence.
I understand clearly the current state of legal affairs in these matters. I thought it was event that I was addressing my beliefs about how things should be, with respect to my ideas about personal liberty and greater social good. My apologies for being unclear.
Do you wish to live in a society where every person's risk-taking is audited by the State? What a dreary world it would be if our liberties were circumscribed by the risk-costs that others will tolerate. It would spell the end of all adventure.
We already live in that world, if you think it is dreary, then so be it.
Yes, we already live in a world where that is sometimes true; I object to that, and I especially object to attempts to ratchet up the divide-and-audit shredding of a social fabric that has functioned well. We are approaching the cusp where risk-assessment becomes dictatorial. I believe that would be a terrible mistake, both in terms of individual freedom and social cohesion.
I'll repeat my unanswered question: is that the sort of world you prefer?
In the end, the solution is to either pay for any damage yourself or have nobody repair said damage by excusing yourself from society.
Yet I don't see how to quantify your relevant behaviors' impact in this matter without close surveillance: {CAUTION--APPROACHING IRONY} I hope you won't mind. You may feel that none of your behaviors are unnecessarily risky, but we won't know until we watch you closely.
There are indeed social, political, and economic interests that advocate and would profit from that approach being applied universally. Their success to date has largely depended on an obfuscation of the financial costs--and the degradation of the quality of life--for the majority of individuals.
The fundamental notion of insurance--a system of shared risks in which no single subscriber must bear the brunt of a calamitous event--is threatened in many ways: genetic testing, prudery, the imposition of moral and religious values... In the U.S., the purest form of shared risk without judgment is Medicare, yet that, too, is being whittled away by privatization, a process in which private insurers cherry-pick younger, less cost-demanding participants, leaving the older, sicker members of the pool facing ruinous costs, or even scrambling to find care at any cost, since many health providers refuse to participate due to low payments.
This unravelling is an essentially "conservative" (read "economic elite") enterprise. The removal of social safety nets and the insistence on individual shouldering of costs favors those for whom health costs are trival WRT to their own wealth.
Nonetheless, if societies are readdressing these questions of shared risk, then, in the spirit of equitable treatment, all risks should be on the table. Perhaps I do not want to pay for broken limbs, or paralysis, suffered on a ski slope or dirt-bike course; perhaps you don't wish to help shoulder the cost of cardiovascular disease resulting from years of a foolish diet; perhaps schraf loathes paying for the health consequences of drink and smoke; mayhap Faith would decline to pay for a Down's syndrome child's care when the parental risk factors are well-known, and diagnostic tests and abortions widely available. But if we each strike what we consider objectionable behavior from the common pool, there will be no pool at all.
Here in the UK a woman was given an ASBO for frequent suicide attempts because it was costing the emergency services a lot of taxpayers time and money and causing distress to the public.
Perhaps she'll do a better job of it next time. O brave new world that has such taxpayers in't!
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-27-2005 12:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2005 8:11 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2005 1:35 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 60 of 136 (263492)
11-27-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
11-24-2005 8:50 PM


As a long-term alcoholic, I find this all very depressing.
I'm not sure what to say about people's right to choose their own lifestyle. But it fills me with dread. I am a person who's life has been pretty screwed up by alcohol, and will probably die young because of it.
Don't know what to say. I feel let down by the Guardian, let down by supposed "lefties" pushing for easier access to alcohol. Don't know what to say.
Mick
in edit: I forgot to ask the significant question: WHY THE FUCK IS ALCOHOL LEGAL?
Mick,
First of all, I just wanted to express best wishes in your battle with alcoholism.
I think the questions you're asking are really hard, because they lay on the line of two incompatible conceptualizations of what it is to be human--that of having free will, and that of determinism.
On the one hand, we see ourselves has having choice. And on the other, we see that we're driven by our bodies, part of which is our brains. We feel we have choice, but sometimes people suggest that we don't. Is alcoholism a disease? In a perspective with free will, what does that even mean?
One of my younger brothers is Type I diabetic; his body does not produce enough insulin. To most people, that's a straightforward disease--it has everything to do with the body, and nothing to do with "will" or "mind." Yet he may suffer from early deterioration of his body, or even early death due to diabetes, and it is exasperated by any troubles he has controlling his diet. If he finds it impossible to control his diet, impossible to control a desire for sweets... should sweets be outlawed?
I read an article on CNN the other day about gun control, mental illness, and the "right to privacy" we have in the US. Should guns be sold to the mentally ill or not? Some people suggest it's an unfair restriction of rights. If we made it illegal to sell alcohol to alcoholics, would that help? Maybe some, but it's easy to get it otherwise. Should we make all guns illegal in order to avoid the mentally ill from getting their hands on them?
I don't mean to spin this topic off-topic by introducing these other ideas. I just wanted to try and give a feel of how I see the complexity.
I personally would wish certain things be sold not for profit--products that are potentially dangerous to X% of our population. Even if that includes sugary products (diabetes), tobacco, alcohol... these things shouldn't be pushed just for money. I don't have a problem with them naturally being a part of a social environment, but I do have a problem when that social environment was created or perpetuated artificially via advertising, in order to make money.
So I say, make ALL such products--including current illegal ones--legal, but not saleable for profit. Try to eliminate the image being sold that it's "cool" to drink, to smoke, to eat sweets. Because although we think we're "free to choose", the fact is we're not simply free-floating minds. We're embodied minds, driven by the biology of brain and body. We're influenced by advertising, by familiarity, by culture.
I'll stop here. I'm almost letting the cat out of the bag--my argument to holmes about why free will is not a useful concept when it comes to law. But seriously, suffice it to say... good luck with the issues you're dealing with, and I wish you all the best. I hope to learn as much as possible from your thoughts and experiences; thank you very much for sharing.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 11-24-2005 8:50 PM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024