The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 101 of 110 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,020 of 2185
  1. #2001
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,425

    Default

    Laura, why is it that you can't seem to accept that there may be a problem with these horses and the impact?

    The AVMA believes it, the AAEP believes it, and they don't believe keeping the slaughterhouses going is good.

    A for instance, making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions. They still happen. They just become more dangerous.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #2002
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Location
    Greenville, MI,
    Posts
    11,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Ok, so we know these folks aren't going to buy the culls.



    Absolutely 100% agree with this. It's a hobby.
    Not to mention the insane prices they ask for an unproven Weanling or yearling.
    "you can only ride the drama llama so hard before it decides to spit in your face." ?Caffeinated.



  3. #2003
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Laura, why is it that you can't seem to accept that there may be a problem with these horses and the impact?

    The AVMA believes it, the AAEP believes it, and they don't believe keeping the slaughterhouses going is good.

    A for instance, making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortions. They still happen. They just become more dangerous.
    Now you are starting to see what the agenda is. They start with the "boo hoo hoo cruel and inhumane slaughter houses..then it is the transportation ..THEN it moves onto AUCTIONS...bad bad bad..with all of the little urban legends coming out from Angels and other disreputable groups...(already caught in a mirad of lies they were last October)

    But they also have HSUS sponsored vets who are now exerting pressure to stop ALL euthanization of HEALTHY horses.

    They will phone an AC officer and have in at least one case we are aware of..tried to have the owner charged with animal cruelty. The case was dropped however horse owner did find another vet who would do it. Family moving to Europe..could ot afford to take the horse and no buyers. They decided they could live with the guilt of what they did rather than not knowing..

    BUT..that is going to be challenged by these anti slaughter groups.

    It is NEVER about the horse..but CONTROL of those who have them, breed them, sell them etc.

    We dog breeders are already seeing that in the U.S. Most of the great breeders in California are now having their litters born in Arizona....


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #2004
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,425

    Default

    Well, I'm not sure that's true of Laura, Fairfax.

    I just find the insistence really strange.

    Is it because it's considered giving an inch to the pro-slaughter movement to acknowledge that at least a couple hundred thousand horses won't have homes?

    Or...?

    I mean, we know that people still speed despite speed limits...

    And if it costs them money, as euthing in any way does, that will give them more incentive to try to make it someone else's problem.

    Don't we want to fix that?

    What does acknowledging that do? I just don't understand.



  5. #2005
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    How do you think those latter parts would happen and what pressures would cause it to happen?
    I am not certain I know what the question is? However, I think you're talking about my comment that "process changes the way owners medicate their horses, changes the way vets operate their practices and changes the production (amounts produced and cost of end product)".

    Take a look at bute, for instance. I board at a barn with ten horses. Lets say my gelding comes in from turn out with a swollen eye. He is alert, happy in himself and hungry. I worry because this involves his eye and I call the vet. Vet knows me and my gelding. He asks a couple of questions, decides it doesn't sound like the eyeball is involved and tells me to give three grams of bute and we'll re-evaluate in the morning.

    Okay. I may or may not have bute in my tack trunk. Lets say I don't. What are the chances that one of my barn mates will have some I can use to dose my gelding with? Three grams isn't a whole lot. Someone gives me a half tube of bute, I dose my gelding with the three grams and the eye swelling is gone in the morning.

    Okay. Now lets look at the same scenario, but add in a passport type system where all medication needs to be tracked. The vet can't tell me to dose my gelding any more. He has to come out and do it, because he isn't going to put his signature on an official form saying the horse got three grams of bute on such-and-such date unless he is the one that administered the three grams of bute. And even if my gelding has been designated as not-for-slaughter, bute can't float around any more because someone might dose a horse with it and not log it. The only way to get around that is to have the vet administer it in exact doses.

    What types of changes will vets need to make if they can no longer hand you a tube of bute paste and tell you to give two grams, twice a day for two days. Now they have to come out twice a day and administer it themselves. And if I have to pay a farm call to get the vet out for every dose, or put the time and effort into getting my gelding to the office and have it administered there, how will my medication protocols change as an owner? I think I have seen the feed through, daily wormer I use on my gelding included on at least some of the banned substances lists. How are my routine decisions like worming going to be made if I have to have my vet administered each dose in order to sign off on it?

    If increased vet involvement causes increased costs to horse owners, the first likely response is going to be cutting back on the medications. Cutting back on use will impact demand, and a lowered demand will cause the companies who manufacture the medications to adjust their production numbers. Decreased production will raise costs of each unit of product made. Suddenly that bute paste doesn't retail for $1 a gram any more. Now it is $10 a gram. Or $25. Whatever they need to charge in order to make a profit off of decreased production.
    Sheilah


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #2006
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,425

    Default

    Sorry - I wasn't being very clear at all! I knew what I meant in my head!

    I was actually wondering why you thought it would go one way vs the other.



  7. #2007
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Sorry - I wasn't being very clear at all! I knew what I meant in my head!

    I was actually wondering why you thought it would go one way vs the other.
    I don't think one resolution is any more probable than another. I do think if slaughter for human consumption is ever outright banned in this country, and not just the weenie move of defunding the inspectors, it will be because the financial incentive is lost and not because it is inhumane.

    Follow the money. It works every, single time.
    Sheilah


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #2008
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2009
    Posts
    3,425

    Default

    I tried to reply and the Internet ate it.

    I've been thinking about the money, and what the pressures will be. I guess my assessment is that there's an awful lot of money at stake, and I'm not sure how that will affect what happens.



  9. #2009
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by betonbill View Post
    Perhaps we need to change the concept that it doesn't necessarily make you an evil person if you can't hang onto that old lame horse that you can't ride and that it's okay to go ahead and euthanize it. Perhaps some education about how horses view their world versus how we do. A change in mind set may in order here.

    New and inexpensive ways to accomplish this might also be in order.
    I always get a hoot out of it when folks claim certainty in knowing "how horses
    view their world." Been inside one of their heads lately? I dunno about you, but my horses plainly remember training they've had years ago, and experiences too. That to me says consciousness of the past. My cats, dogs, and horses can also tell time better than I can--and rattle, bang, and kick whatever's necessary to get my attention come feeding time. That to me says consciousness of both present condition, and causality of the future!

    When I put a horse down, I leave it in the field so the rest of the herd can grok what's going on until the burial/rendering/cremation folks get here. They all but hold a "wake"--pawing, trying to wake the dead horse up, staying by him until the smells clearly say "not alive." That, to me, says they understand death. As flight animals, they certainly also understand "danger," as in run TF out of here so you don't end up like THAT! They also, without any doubt in my mind, know when "their number is up." Seen it too many times to believe otherwise. When it's "time," they KNOW it and are in less denial about it than we are. In sum, I have seen some extraordinary things, that are not explainable empirically.

    Obviously, their self-awareness is on a less "intellectual" level than our own. But don't think for one minute they don't know what's going on. I do not believe that their perceptions of time, space, fear, pain, and apprehension are much different from ours; Darwin wired us all, you know? Just a little bit differently depending on whether predator or prey.

    Hang out with 'em enough and you'll find it less easy to assume they're just some kind of instinctive automatons. BTW--programming soldiers to believe the enemy "isn't like us" is the quickest way to lower the normal cultural barriers to killing in wartime. Very convenient, that!
    Last edited by Lady Eboshi; Jun. 12, 2013 at 11:09 PM.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #2010
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    I am not certain I know what the question is? However, I think you're talking about my comment that "process changes the way owners medicate their horses, changes the way vets operate their practices and changes the production (amounts produced and cost of end product)".

    Take a look at bute, for instance. I board at a barn with ten horses. Lets say my gelding comes in from turn out with a swollen eye. He is alert, happy in himself and hungry. I worry because this involves his eye and I call the vet. Vet knows me and my gelding. He asks a couple of questions, decides it doesn't sound like the eyeball is involved and tells me to give three grams of bute and we'll re-evaluate in the morning.

    Okay. I may or may not have bute in my tack trunk. Lets say I don't. What are the chances that one of my barn mates will have some I can use to dose my gelding with? Three grams isn't a whole lot. Someone gives me a half tube of bute, I dose my gelding with the three grams and the eye swelling is gone in the morning.

    Okay. Now lets look at the same scenario, but add in a passport type system where all medication needs to be tracked. The vet can't tell me to dose my gelding any more. He has to come out and do it, because he isn't going to put his signature on an official form saying the horse got three grams of bute on such-and-such date unless he is the one that administered the three grams of bute. And even if my gelding has been designated as not-for-slaughter, bute can't float around any more because someone might dose a horse with it and not log it. The only way to get around that is to have the vet administer it in exact doses.

    What types of changes will vets need to make if they can no longer hand you a tube of bute paste and tell you to give two grams, twice a day for two days. Now they have to come out twice a day and administer it themselves. And if I have to pay a farm call to get the vet out for every dose, or put the time and effort into getting my gelding to the office and have it administered there, how will my medication protocols change as an owner? I think I have seen the feed through, daily wormer I use on my gelding included on at least some of the banned substances lists. How are my routine decisions like worming going to be made if I have to have my vet administered each dose in order to sign off on it?

    If increased vet involvement causes increased costs to horse owners, the first likely response is going to be cutting back on the medications. Cutting back on use will impact demand, and a lowered demand will cause the companies who manufacture the medications to adjust their production numbers. Decreased production will raise costs of each unit of product made. Suddenly that bute paste doesn't retail for $1 a gram any more. Now it is $10 a gram. Or $25. Whatever they need to charge in order to make a profit off of decreased production.
    Sheilah
    You really think that's going to happen for the 1% of horses who -might- end up in the food chain? Nah! Not remotely cost-effective. The only people who will restrict medications are those who want the passports. And that's going to be a really small subset of the purpose-bred, the Premarin foals, the range-rat QH's, and maybe a few Amish drafts who don't get meds anyway. The rest of us aren't even going to have it on the radar. Trust me!



  11. #2011
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    You really think that's going to happen for the 1% of horses who -might- end up in the food chain? Nah! Not remotely cost-effective. The only people who will restrict medications are those who want the passports. And that's going to be a really small subset of the purpose-bred, the Premarin foals, the range-rat QH's, and maybe a few Amish drafts who don't get meds anyway. The rest of us aren't even going to have it on the radar. Trust me!
    Which is part of the point I was trying to make. Will the numbers that actually follow through on the passport idea be high enough to make it financially worthwhile to participate? All so a small fraction of the overall horse population can safely go to slaughter for human consumption?

    Or will they say to hell with it, and just ban slaughter for human consumption outright? Remember, the EU will also being getting an earful from the breeders in their own countries that are actually purpose raising horses for human consumption, and those breeders will be demanding a level playing field. If they have to produce drug free meat, so do the importers.
    Sheilah



  12. #2012
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    Which is part of the point I was trying to make. Will the numbers that actually follow through on the passport idea be high enough to make it financially worthwhile to participate? All so a small fraction of the overall horse population can safely go to slaughter for human consumption?

    Or will they say to hell with it, and just ban slaughter for human consumption outright? Remember, the EU will also being getting an earful from the breeders in their own countries that are actually purpose raising horses for human consumption, and those breeders will be demanding a level playing field. If they have to produce drug free meat, so do the importers.
    Sheilah
    I think the passport system will relegate it to a very small, niche market. As it is already, arguably. As things supposedly stand now, 1 horse in 100 is going for slaughter, of which we may assume some smaller number are actually approved for human consumption. Those orders will still be filled, but not "give me your tired, your poor, the wretched refuse" any more. They will be purpose-bred in such a way they'll show a profit. Huge step up, say I!



  13. #2013
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    I always get a hoot out of it when folks claim certainty in knowing "how horses
    view their world." Been inside one of their heads lately? I dunno about you, but my horses plainly remember training they've had years ago, and experiences too. That to me says consciousness of the past. My cats, dogs, and horses can also tell time better than I can--and rattle, bang, and kick whatever's necessary to get my attention come feeding time. That to me says consciousness of both present condition, and causality of the future!

    When I put a horse down, I leave it in the field so the rest of the herd can grok what's going on until the burial/rendering/cremation folks get here. They all but hold a "wake"--pawing, trying to wake the dead horse up, staying by him until the smells clearly say "not alive." That, to me, says they understand death. As flight animals, they certainly also understand "danger," as in run TF out of here so you don't end up like THAT! They also, without any doubt in my mind, know when "their number is up." Seen it too many times to believe otherwise. When it's "time," they KNOW it and are in less denial about it than we are. In sum, I have seen some extraordinary things, that are not explainable empirically.

    Obviously, their self-awareness is on a less "intellectual" level than our own. But don't think for one minute they don't know what's going on. I do not believe that their perceptions of time, space, fear, pain, and apprehension are much different from ours; Darwin wired us all, you know? Just a little bit differently depending on whether predator or prey.

    Hang out with 'em enough and you'll find it less easy to assume they're just some kind of instinctive automatons. BTW--programming soldiers to believe the enemy "isn't like us" is the quickest way to lower the normal cultural barriers to killing in wartime. Very convenient, that!
    Not saying whether you are right or wrong. No one knows. Can a horse conceptualize death...i.e....knows he is next in line...absolutely not.

    You have had a herd gawk and come over..and look..I have had them just ignore the horse..and also move well away from it at night time when the scavengers come.

    Animals can reflect or appear to reflect what we feel and we have all of the young girl books who created that emotion..like Lady and the Tramp..for dog lovewrs...My friend Flicka for young girls.

    That emotional impact on youg girls 18-33 is what HSUS and rescues count on...an animal replacing a human connection..

    Guess who basically said the same thing...Wayne..CEO HSUS..he NEVER had a connection with an animal and truly doesn't know if they can give one or not.

    Sadly..your Obviously paragraph is wanky..fear..pain..but NOT time nor space..they understand flight/fear and cornered but can not identify it as space or they would not try and leap barriers...they would think about it first.

    They are NOT in the same league as humans. That does not diminish them..but does NOT put them into a catagory..would I save my horsey or my child.

    They Know? I don't..but in the wild..they are brought down..go into shock..and die..They fight until the shock takes over..no such thing as "denial" for a horse


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #2014
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Is it because it's considered giving an inch to the pro-slaughter movement to acknowledge that at least a couple hundred thousand horses won't have homes?

    .
    A couple of hundred thousand horses will still have homes and owners. The owners may want to sell them but they DO still have homes. There is only a small percentage of people that would allow an animal to starve, or that would dump an animal. You are trying to say that 100% of the people that in the past have legally sold their horse to slaughter (their NON-EMACIATED, HEALTHY HORSE, that they have kept that way in the past), will all of a sudden starve or dump their horses just because they can't sell to slaughter. That's just not true. They may not be thrilled to have to look at all of the other options, and take a little more time to get it rehomed/euthed, but they will do it.

    The people that you see in mass starvation cases are mentally ill, and are not the ones selling to slaughter, and the KB's were not buying the horses that were starving or neglected. They were/are buying horses that are fat and healthy. If the previous owners that sold to slaughter were capable of keeping them healthy before, they still will be.

    And all of those owners could have had one of their horses colic/break a leg, and they would have had to have the horse euthed and disposed of. So they "could" have paid for euth, but opted to sell to slaughter instead. If euth becomes the only option for them, if they truly need to get rid of the horse, the vast majority can arrange it.

    You may believe that those selling to slaughter are willing to watch an animal starve, or are willing to break laws, but I believe the vast majority are law abiding owners that opted to take the easy quick way to get rid of a horse, but if push comes t shove, they won't starve horses or break laws. (KB's are a different story..).

    KB's on the other hand have dumped/abandoned over 5000 horses a yr that were rejected from crossing the border. They have shown they are willing to break laws. The owners of the horses have not shown a pattern of that, so it's a safer bet to leave the horses with the owners to rehome, figure out what they want to do to rehome them, rather than use the commercial slaughter system.

    As the pro slaughter side keeps reminding us, the owners selling to slaughter were engaged in a legal act. They aren't criminals, and shouldn't be assumed that they are all horse abusers that if they have to hang onto a horse a day longer, will suddenly become criminals.

    If an owner does dump or starve a horse, we have laws against that. Horse owners need to be encouraging prosecution of people abusing/neglecting horses. Without slaughter, rescues won't have to outbid KB'ers, and maybe the horse community can work more on establishing hay banks, gelding clinics, and euth clinics for those horses that truly need it...not the fat healthy horses that would have gone to slaughter, but the person that loves their horse, and would never have sold to slaughter, and is hanging on by a thread trying to feed their horse, who may be getting thin. Or the person that lost their job, and is trying to place their horse, and could use a little help until they get a job. They probably wouldn't have sold to slaughter, but the horse is in need temporarily.

    Maybe the AVMA will stop backing having a horse killed by slaughter, but then having vets refuse to euth a pasture sound horse who's owner is in financial dire straights due to a job loss/illness. That always amazed me, that they can back slaughter, but refuse to euth if the horse isn't suffering.
    Last edited by jetsmom; Jun. 13, 2013 at 01:17 AM.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #2015
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,015

    Default

    I don't believe we can be "sure" of much of anything. Playing the "what if" scenario is good idea.
    I believe the USA will have to comply with the EU regulations which means that we will have to document the drug use. I skimmed over IdahoRider's post about that. I believe she explains that very well. That's what I think is going to happen. I think that will add to the cost of horse ownership and we will lose more potential owners that way.
    Trying to create a niche market for horsemeat would definitely cause problems. Too many people complaining about it.
    We need to lobby our vets to use something other than the "pink juice" to euthanize horses. That would make them more environmentally friendly to compost or whatever.
    I also have no problem with the local butcher/abbotoir/whatever.
    People are trying to become more educated about food and how it all works. There needs to be more light shed on the whole subject and not have it all be so secretive. With all the GMO issues being tossed around - we need to know more about our food - not less.


    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    One more note about this is that I am not currently looking for an answer as to whether slaughter should be legal or not.

    As Laura has pointed out, the nails are in the coffin. If the market from the EU dries up as everyone is saying - that discussion is pointless.

    So, now that that part is, in effect, out of the way and a moot point, what happens next. What do we do? Are we sure that our horses and industries will, in fact, be fine, as some have asserted?

    Or do we have to remedy it.

    This is where the emotional and cultural components can only come in *after* we have looked at the impact. Because then those become about how to change what people think about throwaway horses.

    If you missed that part in the middle where I said - oh dear what are the impacts and I was told repeatedly that there would be none, I understand your confusion.

    I don't believe that everything will automatically just be fine. That isn't how the world works. So to understand the impacts I have to pull the pieces apart.

    Does that make more sense as to where I was coming from and why I was trying to analyze the data without getting into what people feel about their animals? Because since we're assuming that it's "got the final nail in the coffin" I am not sure why repeating that Americans don't eat horses matters.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #2016
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,015

    Default

    Will we see more abandoned horses?? There have been many people in this economy that have not used the auction/slaughter option.
    Yes we have laws to enforce neglect/cruelty etc. but how long will that take to kick in??
    Just because we think they "have to" doesn't mean they actually will.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    Laura, we've got at least 200,000 to deal with, as even if all the breeders stopped breeding immediately upon the ban, you've got another 10 months of foals involved.

    I know that you're saying that they'll just have to do it, but what I'm not sure about is that they suddenly will. That's the impact that I am trying to examine.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #2017
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,015

    Default

    The only thing we know for sure is that it will affect it. Slaughter isn't going to go away just because.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneGrayPony View Post
    I tried to reply and the Internet ate it.

    I've been thinking about the money, and what the pressures will be. I guess my assessment is that there's an awful lot of money at stake, and I'm not sure how that will affect what happens.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #2018
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,015

    Default

    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    Which is part of the point I was trying to make. Will the numbers that actually follow through on the passport idea be high enough to make it financially worthwhile to participate? All so a small fraction of the overall horse population can safely go to slaughter for human consumption?

    Or will they say to hell with it, and just ban slaughter for human consumption outright? Remember, the EU will also being getting an earful from the breeders in their own countries that are actually purpose raising horses for human consumption, and those breeders will be demanding a level playing field. If they have to produce drug free meat, so do the importers.
    Sheilah


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #2019
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Location
    Greenville, MI,
    Posts
    11,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdahoRider View Post
    I don't think one resolution is any more probable than another. I do think if slaughter for human consumption is ever outright banned in this country, and not just the weenie move of defunding the inspectors, it will be because the financial incentive is lost and not because it is inhumane.

    Follow the money. It works every, single time.
    Sheilah
    Absolutely! Demand is gone, Slaughter is gone.
    "you can only ride the drama llama so hard before it decides to spit in your face." ?Caffeinated.



  20. #2020
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Location
    Greenville, MI,
    Posts
    11,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    I don't believe we can be "sure" of much of anything. Playing the "what if" scenario is good idea.
    I believe the USA will have to comply with the EU regulations which means that we will have to document the drug use. I skimmed over IdahoRider's post about that. I believe she explains that very well. That's what I think is going to happen. I think that will add to the cost of horse ownership and we will lose more potential owners that way.
    Trying to create a niche market for horsemeat would definitely cause problems. Too many people complaining about it.
    We need to lobby our vets to use something other than the "pink juice" to euthanize horses. That would make them more environmentally friendly to compost or whatever.
    I also have no problem with the local butcher/abbotoir/whatever.
    People are trying to become more educated about food and how it all works. There needs to be more light shed on the whole subject and not have it all be so secretive. With all the GMO issues being tossed around - we need to know more about our food - not less.
    Excellent Post JG~
    "you can only ride the drama llama so hard before it decides to spit in your face." ?Caffeinated.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: Mar. 10, 2010, 09:47 AM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: Feb. 21, 2010, 05:23 AM
  3. Replies: 156
    Last Post: May. 7, 2009, 05:29 PM
  4. Halting slaughter trailering to Canada...
    By Nojacketrequired in forum Off Course
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Dec. 14, 2008, 06:54 PM
  5. Replies: 136
    Last Post: Oct. 5, 2003, 08:48 PM

Posting Permissions

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