Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
259 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, Pollux (3 members, 256 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,687 Year: 3,333/14,102 Month: 274/724 Week: 32/91 Day: 17/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Socialist United State ???
kowalskil 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 15
From: Fort Lee, NJ, USA
Joined: 11-27-2010


Message 1 of 15 (597771)
12-23-2010 10:09 PM


My OpEdNews article, entitled Socialist United States, has been published today at:

http://www.opednews.com/...y-Ludwik-Kowalski-101222-350.html

Some of you might be interested.
.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 12-23-2010 10:16 PM kowalskil has not yet responded
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2010 10:20 PM kowalskil has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2 of 15 (597772)
12-23-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kowalskil
12-23-2010 10:09 PM


A Socialist United States is certainly something to hope for. Who knows, maybe someday we might even reach the standards of Canada, Great Britain and most of Europe.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kowalskil, posted 12-23-2010 10:09 PM kowalskil has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 15 (597773)
12-23-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kowalskil
12-23-2010 10:09 PM


Hi kowalskil, and welcome to the fray.

My OpEdNews article, entitled Socialist United States, has been published today at:

We don't debate other websites here (see forum guidelines), so if you want to discuss this, post your salient points - or better still pick your best shot.

Personally I don't see a problem with socialist type programs per se ibeing implemented by elected governments to provide for the pursuit of happiness by the population being served.

Is there some particular aspect of "socialism" (and how do you define it?) that you have trouble with?

Enjoy.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/PresentHTML.cgi?control=h...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kowalskil, posted 12-23-2010 10:09 PM kowalskil has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 12-24-2010 7:39 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 12 by kowalskil, posted 01-04-2011 9:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 15 (597850)
12-24-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
12-23-2010 10:20 PM


I have one problem it can be abused if there is not enough control. One such example would be young couples tend not to get married when they have a child so the mother is classified as a sole parent and automatically entitled to child support from the states along with other benefits. No one bothers to check up on them to see if she actually is a sole provider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2010 10:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2010 10:56 PM frako has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 15 (597860)
12-24-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
12-24-2010 7:39 PM


Hi Frako,

... young couples tend not to get married when they have a child so the mother is classified as a sole parent and automatically entitled to child support ...

Yeah, we have the same perceived problem here with "welfare moms" and this also results in less commitment of the father to the family. But that could be considered a result of punishing families that do get married by taking away benefits. It's more a problem of how the law is written than that people take advantage of it: if the law was transparently the same whether the couple were married or not, then it should not be a problem.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 12-24-2010 7:39 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-24-2010 11:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 15 (597861)
12-24-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
12-24-2010 10:56 PM


Regardless of whatever we are talking about, there will always be opportunists taking advantage of whatever situation they could find. This attitude will not go away anytime soon. I fail to see how 'welfare moms' legitimizes taking away safety nets for the real thing.

Edit.

Take us, for example. We're atheists and we don't even celebrate christmas. Yet, we have 3 different social gatherings to go to tomorrow to meet people and eat free food.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2010 10:56 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 12-25-2010 5:41 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 7 of 15 (597874)
12-25-2010 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
12-24-2010 11:00 PM


I fail to see how 'welfare moms' legitimizes taking away safety nets for the real thing.

It is just a slight flaw in the system that could be corrected if the social workers and staff would actually do what they are supposed to do and check up on people like that. And if politicians would do what they have to do and write laws that do not have loop holes, sometimes when i read our laws i wonder if preschool children wrote them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-24-2010 11:00 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2010 3:28 PM frako has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 15 (597916)
12-25-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by frako
12-25-2010 5:41 AM


frako responds to Taz:

quote:
quote:
I fail to see how 'welfare moms' legitimizes taking away safety nets for the real thing.

It is just a slight flaw in the system that could be corrected if the social workers and staff would actually do what they are supposed to do and check up on people like that.


What makes you think they don't?

This is nothing more than the recycled Reagan bullshit of "welfare queens." But the reality is that there aren't any. Now, let's not play dumb and say that if we can one example, then that means your original statement is true. I will handily admit that there is at least one person who games the system and at least one couple who has decided to avoid getting married due to the issue of losing benefits*. But let's not pretend that this is a widespread problem.

A common refrain from the "welfare queen" crowd is to point at Sweden to rail against the welfare state and how it leads to illegitimacy and the like. And while it's true that Sweden has a large percentage of its children born out of wedlock, it is also true that the majority of children have married parents. How can that be? Simple: The couple tends not to get married until they have a kid.

This is the problem with looking only at the surface. Social programs are developed not willy-nilly, not simply toss money from the side of a train a la scenes from Evita. The paperwork you have to slog through in order to get governmental benefits can be massive. It is not a simple procedure and there are checks to ensure efficiency. No system is perfect, but let's not pretend that because it isn't perfect, that means it is absolutely broken.

[*One of the problems with such is that among the benefits one gets is Medicaid, which is subsidized health insurance for the poor. When the income level changes such as by getting married, you can lose that benefit but still be too poor to afford health insurance, either because your employer doesn't offer it and/or it's too expensive.]


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 12-25-2010 5:41 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by frako, posted 12-25-2010 5:23 PM Rrhain has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 9 of 15 (597930)
12-25-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
12-25-2010 3:28 PM


Well this was a very wide spread problem in Yugoslavia welfare was way to good there was only a small difference between welfare and minimal wage say 20% and loads of people who where lazy abused the system why work if you can sit at home and get the same cash.

Though now things are stabilizing you only get a bit more then half (sometimes up to 90% though i dunno why or when) of their average wage for 10% of the time you where employed. If you have 4 years of employment under your belt you get abbout 6 months welfare if you lose your job, not if you quit.

But our system is also lacking on the contra scale if parents have small wages they get benefits for their children tough in my opinion those benefits are to small.

Do not get me wrong i am all for "socialism" though i do think the system needs some work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2010 3:28 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2010 2:34 AM frako has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 15 (598184)
12-29-2010 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by frako
12-25-2010 5:23 PM


frako responds to me:

quote:
Well this was a very wide spread problem in Yugoslavia welfare was way to good there was only a small difference between welfare and minimal wage say 20% and loads of people who where lazy abused the system why work if you can sit at home and get the same cash.

This is a common whine from the right here in the US but the reality doesn't match. States that have more generous welfare payouts tend to have lower rates of poverty, usually because they have a more substantial safety net that helps people get out of poverty.

Don't you find it interesting that the constitution that the US provided for Iraq contains clauses about guaranteed living wages and welfare? Why is it so much better for everybody else but not for our own people?

quote:
loads of people who where lazy abused the system why work if you can sit at home and get the same cash.

I'm sure you think that's true. Do you have any evidence of such? And more specifically, do you have the evidence that shows it's an actual cause-and-effect scenario and not merely coincidence? For example, unemployment benefits have been extended out to 99 weeks from the previous standard of 26. Does that mean people in the US are lazy? Of course not. The reason unemployment has become so "generous" (and let's be honest, unemployment benefits won't get a family of four above the poverty line, so they're hardly "generous") is because unemployment is so rampant. People want to work, but there simply aren't any jobs for them to have.

quote:
Do not get me wrong i am all for "socialism" though i do think the system needs some work.

That may be, but you are making blanket statements rather than specifics and your examples are about things that are of little effect.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by frako, posted 12-25-2010 5:23 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by frako, posted 12-29-2010 5:50 AM Rrhain has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 11 of 15 (598189)
12-29-2010 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rrhain
12-29-2010 2:34 AM


Do you have any evidence of such?

You can interview my neighbor he never held a job in Yugoslavia for very long, now he has to and he still abuses the system when he is no longer alleageble for welfare he gets a job, works for a bit then does his best to get fired. When he is back on welfare he gets a job that pays cash and does not get him listed as employed (illegal in our country because of welfare).

People want to work, but there simply aren't any jobs for them to have.

I know people want to work here to and dose who really want to usually find jobs. Tough when i was looking for 2 workers 30 applied 25 of them only wanted me to sign the paper that they where here for the interview, one of them did not even want to come out of his car he pointed the paper out of the window.

That may be, but you are making blanket statements rather than specifics and your examples are about things that are of little effect.

Now you have some examples, as i said i am all for socialism tough it does need more control.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 12-29-2010 2:34 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 01-10-2011 12:26 AM frako has not yet responded

  
kowalskil 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2676 days)
Posts: 15
From: Fort Lee, NJ, USA
Joined: 11-27-2010


Message 12 of 15 (599095)
01-04-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
12-23-2010 10:20 PM


RAZD wrote:

"We don't debate other websites here (see forum guidelines), so if you want to discuss this, post your salient points - or better still pick your best shot.

Personally I don't see a problem with socialist type programs per se ibeing implemented by elected governments to provide for the pursuit of happiness by the population being served.

Is there some particular aspect of "socialism" (and how do you define it?) that you have trouble with?"
====================================

1) My "silent point" is that the program of SPUSA (Socialist Party of USA) is not clear to me. I was asking for clarifications. That was the essence of my post. Details can only be meaningful in the context in which they were presented.

2) The word "socialism," by the way, means different things to different people. Politicians often take advantage of this. Let me share an item I once wrote about this. They show good things and they hide bad things.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

A) The term Marxist means different thing to different people. My tentative definition is shown below, Do you agree with it?

How to distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist? Everyone who believes that proletarian dictatorship is needed, after the overthrow of capitalism, to improve social conditions, is a Marxist. The idea of proletarian dictatorship unites all kinds of communists: Stalinists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. Anarchists are not Marxists because they are against any form of state (capitalist or proletarian). But all communists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists. These social engineers, like Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, form parties that are said to be "the vanguards of proletariat."

The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of  proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations. 

B) The term Socialism also means different things to different people. When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. But that is not how the term is used in America today. My impression is that American Socialists reject Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship; they believe that social conditions can be improved via progressive reforms (not by revolution). In other words, they are not Marxists. Is this impression correct? 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My own evolutions, from one extreme (being a devoted stalinist) to another (being an active anticommunist) is described a free ON-LINE book. The link to this short autobigraphy is:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

in case someone might be interested. I am also a socialist by I am not going to vote for SPUSA; the emblem of that party is "proletarians of the world unite." I do not wish anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship.

Ludwik Kowalski

Edited by kowalskil, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2010 10:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by xongsmith, posted 01-04-2011 11:26 PM kowalskil has not yet responded
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2011 1:04 PM kowalskil has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2037
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 13 of 15 (599109)
01-04-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kowalskil
01-04-2011 9:54 PM


It's Alright
Anytime I see the words "totalitarian", "Dictatorship" or such associated with the Socialism, I almost twist myself into a knot trying to perceive how any of those idiots could ever have confused & conflated & abused & raped the noble virtues of Socialism. It is an affront to humanity to do so. The biggest trouble with Socialism is how easy it is for terrible (read Fascists) people to get in charge.

Sometimes I think of the political spectrum as being on a wheel with Stalin at 181 degrees and Hitler at 179. That does NOT mean I like Noon (Zero degrees). I'm always trying to sleep through Noon, in it's Darkness, so as to avoid the child's balloon and those other things.

Possible lists of various dudes & dudettes:

Nero - 180
Nixon - part 140, part Noon.
Reagan - 170
Tito (anyone remember him? Frako would) - 220
Pol Pot - 180
Nancy Reagan - 100
Carter - Noon
Bush the 1st - 150
Bush the 2nd - 170
Bill Clinton - 60
Hillary Clinton - 20
Barack Obama - 20
Rush Limbaugh - 175
Nancy Pelosi - 350
Ed Kennedy - 340, but part Noon
FDR - 300
Dawn Bertot - 180
Eugene Debs - 250
Pete Seeger - 270 all the way, god bless him
Bob Dylan - 90! surprise!!!
Kucinich - 310
Sanders - 309
Ron Paul - 175, despite what he says
Sarah Palin - 160
me - probably around 300, to the left of Sanders but at least 30 degrees above where Freedom is beginning to be adversely impacted (below the horizontal line).

But even a wheel is a bad view. Perhaps it should be more of the surface of an oblate sphere.

Ludwik concludes:

I am also a socialist by I am not going to vote for SPUSA; the emblem of that party is "proletarians of the world unite." I do not wish anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship.

Based on your report I would concur.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kowalskil, posted 01-04-2011 9:54 PM kowalskil has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 772 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 15 (599708)
01-10-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by frako
12-29-2010 5:50 AM


frako responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Do you have any evidence of such?

You can interview my neighbor...


Hold it right there. You really think you can get away with passing off anecdote as evidence here?

But more importantly, I recall specifically telling you, in my original response:

Now, let's not play dumb and say that if we can one example, then that means your original statement is true.

It would seem that you have decided to ignore that request. As I stated immediately afterward:

I will handily admit that there is at least one person who games the system and at least one couple who has decided to avoid getting married due to the issue of losing benefits. But let's not pretend that this is a widespread problem.

If you aren't going to read my posts, then we are going to have a problem with having an intellectually honest discussion.

quote:
Tough when i was looking for 2 workers 30 applied 25 of them only wanted me to sign the paper that they where here for the interview, one of them did not even want to come out of his car he pointed the paper out of the window.

You seem to be overlooking something: You had more people looking for work than there were jobs available. That's the problem.

You're anecdotes are fine and dandy, but they do not reflect reality.

quote:
Now you have some examples

No, I don't. I have some just-so stories from you. Your personal experience is not an accurate gauge of real life. We don't accept it in any other area of rational inquiry, what on earth makes you think it would be blindly accepted here? The people who have actively studied the issue of social safety nets all disagree with your opinion.

Where is your study that shows them to be wrong? "I know a guy" is not a study.

quote:
as i said i am all for socialism tough it does need more control.

All things need control. There are no perfect systems, especially when people are involved. But your stated reactions have been based upon nothing more than personal bias.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by frako, posted 12-29-2010 5:50 AM frako has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 15 (599762)
01-10-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kowalskil
01-04-2011 9:54 PM


welcome back kowalskil, here's a posting tip:

RAZD wrote:
(pasted quoted material)

if you type [qs=RAZD](pasted quoted material)[/qs] it comes out as

RAZD writes:

(pasted quoted material)

You can also use the PEEK function to see how any post is formated. You can also use the REPLY button next to the PEEK button at the bottom of each post to direct your reply to the person indicated. (note how my post says it is a reply to your post Message 12).

... the program of SPUSA (Socialist Party of USA) is not clear to me. I was asking for clarifications. ...

Then I would ask SPUSA, not an Evo vs Creo forum.

http://www.sp-usa.org/

With the caveat that they may be misusing the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA

quote:
The Socialist Party USA is a multi-tendency democratic socialist political party in the United States. The party considers itself to be the continuation or successor of the Socialist Party of America-Social Democratic Federation (founded in 1901), which had previously adopted the name Socialist Party USA in 1962.[1]

The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively[2][3] and judicially[4] entrenched two-party system.

The party is opposed to both capitalism and "authoritarian Communism" and supports a socialist solution of bringing big business under public ownership and workers' control rather than direct state control.[5] The Party advocates independent electoral action aimed at promoting socialist alternatives and categorically opposes the candidates of the two major parties. Its youth affiliate is the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL).


Socialism would seem to work within democratic governments, as evidenced by various governments around the world with varying degrees of social(ist) programs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

quote:
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is characterised by a free association, which is not based on wage labour. It is organized on the basis of relatively equal power relations, self-management, collective decision-making and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the economic and political systems.

Personally I am not sure that a pure socialist state could work, however I also do not think this has been tried yet. I also am not convinced that any form of mandated production can be an efficient means of management, and it seems to me that some basic level of capitalism allows for rather simple mass voting on what people would like to have produced.

2) The word "socialism," by the way, means different things to different people.

Which is why I asked you to provide your definition of what you think it means, and so we can better understand each other in this discussion.

... When I was young I was taught that Socialism is proletarian dictatorship. It was introduced to us (in Poland) as the transitional system between capitalism and communism. ... I do not wish anyone to experience proletarian dictatorship.

I don't see that as a good definition of socialism, rather it seems to promote the slide into the autocratic oligarchies of the "communist" countries - propaganda.

The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx's idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual--Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not falsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. Marx, if he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations.

My feeling is that he would say that it has not yet been implemented according to his theories, rather that the autocratic oligarchies that have risen are just dictatorships using "communism" or "socialism" as a political slight of hand (the way the fascists in germany called themselves a democracy?). Calling yourself something does not make it so.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kowalskil, posted 01-04-2011 9:54 PM kowalskil has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021