Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > San Francisco has officially ceded from the real world.

San Francisco has officially ceded from the real world.
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:19 PM
 
San Francisco bans wood burning on Christmas Eve | Fox News

Seriously? They banned having a fire in the fireplace on Christmas? Now they're telling us what we can and can't do within the confines of our own property. A fire in the fireplace is strictly out of the question. How ridiculous a notion that someone might actually use their fireplace on Christmas. Here's your government for you!


I would love to see them try to enforce that around here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:28 PM
 
Air District rules out Bay Area fireplace use on Christmas eve | www.ktvu.com

"First-time violators will be given the option of taking a wood smoke awareness class"

     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:33 PM
 
I can kinda see it in terms of it being a low of 45° over the holiday.

Since it's 17° here, they deserve punishment.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:34 PM
 
How embarrassing.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Without fail, millions of people must suffer the absurdity of some idiot politicians pushing their agenda.

Couldn't you argue that celebrating Christmas including the burning of fire falls squarely under the protection of the 1st amendment?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:35 PM
 
Shitty job #231: writing tickets for this in Oakland.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can kinda see it in terms of it being a low of 45° over the holiday.

Since it's 17° here, they deserve punishment.
I mean, I find it absurd no matter what temperature it is outside.

I feel bad for whatever dumb schmucks they make write out the citations. That's one way to be universally hated overnight.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Shitty job #231: writing tickets for this in Oakland.
Beat me to it
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 07:50 PM
 
We have "no burn days" here in Phoenix. That is one reason why this went from this:



to this:

     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2013, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
We have "no burn days" here in Phoenix. That is one reason why this went from this:



to this:

Unconstitutional.

Plain and Simple.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 08:23 AM
 
What if you heat your house with a Pellet Stove? Some of these politicians NEED to have a couple of tons of cow poo dumped on their doorsteps.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 03:55 PM
 
Is it true that certain kinds of wood burn dirty and contribute significantly to air pollution?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 04:00 PM
 
Someone apparently needs a wood smoke awareness class.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post

Seriously?
Yes. Seriously. Spare the air alerts are issued for a reason.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is it true that certain kinds of wood burn dirty and contribute significantly to air pollution?
It's not so much about the type of wood, but that certain weather conditions cause particulate matter to accumulate at ground level more than it normally does.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 04:33 PM
 
I'm going to guess it's related to being an a valley.

We're flat here and usually get a strong wind off the lake. We get weird, trapped air weather patterns, but they happen in summer and are entirely air pressure related.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 04:35 PM
 
That said, I'd imagine Pittsburg thinks you're a bunch of pussies.
     
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2013, 05:42 PM
 
Funny... anyone there wait until 12am on the 25th to light their fire?
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 07:07 AM
 
ridiculous. Around here people heat their homes with wood, not just for decorative (ie, christmas) reasons.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Without fail, millions of people must suffer the absurdity of some idiot politicians pushing their agenda.
An agenda of clean air?


Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
What if you heat your house with a Pellet Stove? Some of these politicians NEED to have a couple of tons of cow poo dumped on their doorsteps.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
ridiculous. Around here people heat their homes with wood, not just for decorative (ie, christmas) reasons.
The only exemption is homes where fireplaces or stoves are the only heat source.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 04:19 PM
 
I suppose this thread is a prime example of ideology trumping basic facts. The areas in the country that have restrictions like this have serious SMOG issues due to huge populations and geographic conditions that cause particulates to accumulate. Unlike what our good friends on the right like to believe, the local governments in these situations aren't going out of their way to give conservatives a hard time. The issue is CLEAN AIR. Unless of course there are those who believe their "constitutional" right to use their fireplace supersedes everyone else's rights to breathe clean air.

Sorry, but I give such complaints about as much credence as I did for smokers who convince themselves that everyone else has to catch lung cancer from their secondhand smoke so they could exercise their so-called "rights".

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose this thread is a prime example of ideology trumping basic facts. The areas in the country that have restrictions like this have serious SMOG issues due to huge populations and geographic conditions that cause particulates to accumulate. Unlike what our good friends on the right like to believe, the local governments in these situations aren't going out of their way to give conservatives a hard time. The issue is CLEAN AIR. Unless of course there are those who believe their "constitutional" right to use their fireplace supersedes everyone else's rights to breathe clean air.

Sorry, but I give such complaints about as much credence as I did for smokers who convince themselves that everyone else has to catch lung cancer from their secondhand smoke so they could exercise their so-called "rights".

OAW


At the very least, it seems that people like Snow-i went of a little half-cocked by not at least acknowledging this argument.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose this thread is a prime example of ideology trumping basic facts. The areas in the country that have restrictions like this have serious SMOG issues due to huge populations and geographic conditions that cause particulates to accumulate. Unlike what our good friends on the right like to believe, the local governments in these situations aren't going out of their way to give conservatives a hard time. The issue is CLEAN AIR. Unless of course there are those who believe their "constitutional" right to use their fireplace supersedes everyone else's rights to breathe clean air.

Sorry, but I give such complaints about as much credence as I did for smokers who convince themselves that everyone else has to catch lung cancer from their secondhand smoke so they could exercise their so-called "rights".

OAW
So... what if personal fireplace use in Phoenix, AZ or San Francisco, CA is actually the least contributing factor to SMOG in those regions and rather than deal with more politically difficult decisisions determined it'd be much easier to APPEAR to be doing something by infringing on your rights first?
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 07:05 PM
 
They TRICKED ME! The Gov't didn't charge tax on my Pellet Stove when I bought it. The pellets are tax free too because it's a renewable energy source, so says the FedGov. So I will freeze to death in my uninsulated San Fran house with no heat. Is the electricity in San Fran coal powered, Hydro electric, or Nuke?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose this thread is a prime example of ideology trumping basic facts. The areas in the country that have restrictions like this have serious SMOG issues due to huge populations and geographic conditions that cause particulates to accumulate. Unlike what our good friends on the right like to believe, the local governments in these situations aren't going out of their way to give conservatives a hard time. The issue is CLEAN AIR. Unless of course there are those who believe their "constitutional" right to use their fireplace supersedes everyone else's rights to breathe clean air.

Sorry, but I give such complaints about as much credence as I did for smokers who convince themselves that everyone else has to catch lung cancer from their secondhand smoke so they could exercise their so-called "rights".

OAW
This comes off like you won't even acknowledge the idea sounds stupid.

I'm not saying it is stupid, but I don't think there's a question it sounds that way.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... what if personal fireplace use in Phoenix, AZ or San Francisco, CA is actually the least contributing factor to SMOG in those regions and rather than deal with more politically difficult decisisions determined it'd be much easier to APPEAR to be doing something by infringing on your rights first?

Please... the same crowd quick to jump at rights being infringed upon with fireplaces would have been all over businesses being infringed upon by being forced to clean up their factories, or whatever. There is no way to win, because there are many conservatives who can't separate their emotions with the problems associated with air pollution and other environmental stress along these lines with the hippy or global warming movement.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Please... the same crowd quick to jump at rights being infringed upon with fireplaces would have been all over businesses being infringed upon by being forced to clean up their factories, or whatever. There is no way to win, because there are many conservatives who can't separate their emotions with the problems associated with air pollution and other environmental stress along these lines with the hippy or global warming movement.
I have no problem with regulation as long as it acknowledges the needs of smaller businesses and start-ups. They almost never do and it becomes a partnership between government and large corporations (including croneyism in the regulative authority) that resembles a marriage that shapes your laws and alienates the backbone of our economy. If not kept in check, the inconveniences become more convenient for you than your employees in government. Also, if these regions have a seasonal hot/cold inversion layer that traps particulates, I might understand heightened awareness periods in those regions. No one is saying any such thing so I don't know.

Otherwise, it looks like a soda ban to me.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I have no problem with regulation as long as it acknowledges the needs of smaller businesses and start-ups. They almost never do and it becomes a partnership between government and large corporations (including croneyism in the regulative authority) that resembles a marriage that shapes your laws and alienates the backbone of our economy. If not kept in check, the inconveniences become more convenient for you than your employees in government. Also, if these regions have a seasonal hot/cold inversion layer that traps particulates, I might understand heightened awareness periods in those regions. No one is saying any such thing so I don't know.

Otherwise, it looks like a soda ban to me.

This seems reasonable.

If this issue was met with some thoughtful investigation rather than what seemed to be knee-jerk reactionary stuff I would have had no problem with it. I don't have an opinion about fireplaces.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This seems reasonable.

If this issue was met with some thoughtful investigation rather than what seemed to be knee-jerk reactionary stuff I would have had no problem with it. I don't have an opinion about fireplaces.
What kind of investigation would you like besson?

They banned fires in fireplaces for Christmas, and wrote people tickets for celebrating their religion in a traditional fashion.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose this thread is a prime example of ideology trumping basic facts. The areas in the country that have restrictions like this have serious SMOG issues due to huge populations and geographic conditions that cause particulates to accumulate. Unlike what our good friends on the right like to believe, the local governments in these situations aren't going out of their way to give conservatives a hard time. The issue is CLEAN AIR. Unless of course there are those who believe their "constitutional" right to use their fireplace supersedes everyone else's rights to breathe clean air.

Sorry, but I give such complaints about as much credence as I did for smokers who convince themselves that everyone else has to catch lung cancer from their secondhand smoke so they could exercise their so-called "rights".

OAW
Quite frankly, what I do on my own property is none of your, or the government's business. I would love to see the citation for the appreciable effects fires in one fireplace has on air quality. I'd betcha all my christmas gifts that you will be hard pressed to produce a solid reason for violating the 1st amendment rights of an entire city.

I'm not sure what scares me more - the government suspending basic constitutional rights for ambiguous "environmental" concerns or the fact that "our friends on the left" are willing to accept and champion any regulation on the left just because some dolt in a suit with a (D) after their name says so. Hell, wikipedia doesn't even have a citation for the claim that wood fires contribute significantly to air pollution. In fact, the one citation provided in that section is from a New Mexico state "guide to burning wood for heat" that makes no mention of health effects beyond the usual disclaimer.

I'll ask you, OAW, for what reason do you support suspending 1st amendment rights? You'll need to do better then "because a government said so."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
^^

That's the other angle.

You have your Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and Christmas.

That's three goddamn days. Somewhat bad air for three days is countered by not-bad air for 362.

This is my overall problem with environmentally concerned people. No concept of give and take.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 04:57 PM
 
^^

Not sure I buy fires being a 1st Amendment issue.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
^^

Not sure I buy fires being a 1st Amendment issue.
Under freedom of religion? A fire in the fireplace is a hallmark of the Christian holiday. It's a tradition in my family, and I'm sure many, many others. I consider it to be an integral part of the holiday, and therefore covered unequivocally by freedom of religion.

Then again it doesn't really matter, as the left has no interest in upholding the freedoms contained therein if it conflicts with whatever agenda the left's got this time around (in this case, taking the christ out of christmas).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What kind of investigation would you like besson?

Read the thread.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 05:17 PM
 
^^

What if my religion involves human sacrifice?

That's an extreme example, but my point is there is unquestionably a line, we're only discussing where it is.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
^^

What if my religion involves human sacrifice?

That's an extreme example, but my point is there is unquestionably a line, we're only discussing where it is.

Yes, and my point is that he kind of exploded into this thread without even acknowledging the issue of clean air, which makes me wonder if this wasn't investigated/considered.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:09 PM
 
I counter with what I said above.

It's two days out of 365. The system strikes me as being needlessly rigid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:11 PM
 
Also, paying citations is against my religion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I counter with what I said above.

It's two days. The system strikes me as being needlessly rigid.

It might very well be.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:14 PM
 
Well, that's what he's pissed about.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, that's what he's pissed about.

If he wants to make that argument it would be stronger if he didn't pretend that there was no counter argument to make, and painting this issue as being a lopsided issue of evil government infringement. This might be a case of infringement, or it might be a reasonable measure to protect the environment.

When seat belts were made mandatory, or motorcycle helmets in states that require them, I'm sure there were plenty of people that thought that government was infringing upon them, but there are reasonable arguments to be made to enforce them in terms of protecting the individual the rule is being enforced upon, but also and perhaps more importantly, to protect other people from the actions of others physically and financially.

So, is this law more of a crazy unreasonable infringement, or more like seat belt/motorcycle helmet laws, and why/how?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:41 PM
 
There is no counter-argument to make. There is no possible way the effects of two days of unrestricted fireplaces per year are anything but negligible.

I can see how the counter-rationale is being misapplied, but that's not a counter-argument.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There is no counter-argument to make. There is no possible way the effects of two days of unrestricted fireplaces per year are anything but negligible.

I can see how the counter-rationale is being misapplied, but that's not a counter-argument.

How do you know that to be true?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:07 PM
 
Because I smoke about 50 cigarettes a day, and have for 20 years.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, if you can't handle two days of fire in the fireplace, you have weak DNA.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
Perhaps a more elegant implementation of this law would be to ban the dirtiest/tarriest kinds of wood? Would this be practical?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:14 PM
 
Jeebus. The solution is to let people use the fireplace on Christmas.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Perhaps a more elegant implementation of this law would be to ban the dirtiest/tarriest kinds of wood? Would this be practical?
Is this your new cause de jour? Banning fireplaces or regulating wood burning? What are you basing the need for any regulation on? There's practically 0 evidence that wood burning contributes to smog in any significant manner. It's hogwash, yet here you are jumping on the band wagon of taking away liberties and you don't even know why, only that those guys on "your" team want it and therefore you want it too.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because I smoke about 50 cigarettes a day, and have for 20 years.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, if you can't handle two days of fire in the fireplace, you have weak DNA.

I don't find that to be a compelling argument, but I'm too lazy to want to research the environmental impact of burning wood, so meh...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Is this your new cause de jour? Banning fireplaces or regulating wood burning? What are you basing the need for any regulation on? There's practically 0 evidence that wood burning contributes to smog in any significant manner. It's hogwash, yet here you are jumping on the band wagon of taking away liberties and you don't even know why, only that those guys on "your" team want it and therefore you want it too.

Wood fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The environmental impact of burning wood fuel is debatable. Several cities have moved towards setting standards of use and/or bans of wood burning fireplaces. For example, the city of Montréal, Québec passed a resolution to ban wood fireplace installation in new construction. However many wood burning advocates claim[weasel words] that properly harvested wood is carbon-neutral, therefore off-setting the negative impact of by-product particles given off during the burning process.
Hence my thinking to focus on the wood.



Ignoring the emotional stuff about teams.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't find that to be a compelling argument, but I'm too lazy to want to research the environmental impact of burning wood, so meh...
Why not?

Do you think wood smoke could be somehow worse than cigarette smoke?

Do you think I'm inhaling more smoke from wood smoke in the air, or from directly inhaling a cigarette?

I'm not arguing smoke isn't harmful. I'm arguing what matters is dosage. There's plenty of research on cigarettes and the dosage required to cause harm. It's a lot. Pack a day for years.

Two days of fire in the fireplace is no way comparable.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not arguing smoke isn't harmful. I'm arguing what matters is dosage. There's plenty of research on cigarettes and the dosage required to cause harm. It's a lot. Pack a day for years.

That's quite debatable:

Health consequences of smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day -- Bjartveit and Tverdal 14 (5): 315 -- Tobacco Control
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2013, 08:00 PM
 
The lowest smoking incidence in that study (other than zero) works out to 5 pack-years. That is, one pack a day for 5 years.

Not a small dose. Nowhere near comparable to two days of fireplace per year.

Edit: closer to 4.5 years.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2