 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
Blackice
I will not deny that there is favoritism toward women in custody cases by a LOT of judges. For years it was even an entrenched legal doctrine that younger children are usually better with their mothers " the tender years doctrine"
But blackice, your statistics and the bill you cite were both misleading. When you say that 89 % of men lose custody, that would not be consistent in most people's minds with 30% getting joint custody. More accurate would be to say that only 11% get sole custody .
As for the Bill you cite, Bill 117, tingkai correctly pointed out that it was provincial legislation and as such it is NOT criminal law. You are correct that several provinces have similar provisions but you are wrong in that they are universally reffered to as VAWA-- in fact the most common terms are "domestic protection order" , "family protection order", "possession order" or "intervention order" since in most cases these provisions have been incorporated as part of family law or matrimonial property legislation.
You quoted the following (did not see the source)
quote:
In Canada feminists were able to push through a law entitled "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA). This law means that any women that you have simply dated, even if just the once, can literally pick up a phone, claim to be "in fear" of you and the anti-patriarchal state will, with no trial nor presumption of innocence, throw you in jail whilst all your assets are transferred into her name, including your home. You are then released under a restraining order to keep you away from "her" (your) own property. Breaking that restraining order is a criminal offence and you will be thrown back in jail for a long time. Any outstanding debts such as rent on your home or insurance, you are still required to pay. Remember she only has to "prove" that she's scared, no offence need occur, no witnesses, no evidence, nothing.
Might I just say -- Bull***t
There is NO WAY, NO HOW that your assets are transferred in that manner to your 10 year live in girl-friend-- let alone someone you DATED ONCE.
The impact of the provision is a possession order for the home or other assets. The idea is that during a breakup it takes time to settle property issues and it can SOMETIMES be dangerous for the couple to remain in the same house. Do judges sometimes grant these on little evidence? Perhaps unfortunately but yes . I believe for better or for worse, most judges tend to err on the side of believing the complainant.
But fault in a divorce or relationship (other than wasting of assets) should not have ANY impact on the division of assets. So a CONVICTED wife-beater would still be entitled to their equal share when the accounting is done. If one spouse gets "possession " of an asset and uses it up , that counts against that spouse in the division . ( Sometimes not much of a remedy if there are few assets)
I can understand you anger at the system as there remain many inherent biases but I tend to think that the biases in the court system tend to reflect those in society as a whole. People on average still are more likely to think of a mother staying home with the kids rather than a father. It may not be right but it is the case.
Last edited by Flubber on 01-03-2002 at 02:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Well this is certainly interesting.
Bill 117 is an Government of Ontario Bill. Anne Cools is a federal senator. So why is Cools making a speech in the Canadian senate about a bill being considered by the Ontario government?
For those of you who are not Canadian, provincial laws are created by provincial governments. The Canadian senate only addresses federal laws. So it is unlikely that Cools would be making a speech about Bill 117 because this bill is outside her jurisdiction.
I checked Senator Cools site and the speech listed by Blackice is not on the site. Very curious.
Here's a link for those interested in the Bill 117.
http://www.newswire.ca/government/o...0/19/c5062.html |
Everything you state is substantially correct except it appears the speech was made before the Ontario committee reviewing the bill. I know that committees can hear from outsiders if they wish and I do not believe it is unheard of for a federal politician (particularly a senator with a life tenure) to express their views . I can only presume (if the site is not totally bogus) that some senator decided to speak before the committee on a topic of concern to her.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
There is NO WAY, NO HOW that your assets are transferred in that manner to your 10 year live in girl-friend-- let alone someone you DATED ONCE. |
That is how it is written yes...
quote:
As for the Bill you cite, Bill 117, tingkai correctly pointed out that it was provincial legislation and as such it is NOT criminal law. |
The majority of the arguement is in fact it is NOT criminal law. it is civil law yet has criminal concequences... Simliar to this is the "dead beat dad" laws they infact jail someone for a debt. In the States this has been successfully agrued against I am not sure of the name but I think you can not be jailed for a civil offence like being in debt as civil law and criminal law are quite different. So what we have is an unproven aligation and action explain to me where while walking down the street and a person said "he did it" and you lose your right to go home, jailed and have your children taken away in one fell swoop anyone...
I know as I was accused of DV by my x and lost my child for 6 months...heh she even said I was arrested and jailed for it. So in good "legal" fashion my child and I were separated for the first time since birth WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. I raised my child until then now she lives with the x goes to school there and my child and I get supervised access. Neat I guess that is fair right? Now the agentcy invovled after great expense says oh your right she lied charges against her hahaha right, legal recourse you have to be kidding. Lets go back to status quo the child now lives with the mother and goes to school there. I seem to have become the "uncle" lost all my rights made it too the AR why a lie...OH please make more laws like this one:roll eyes:Or better yet amend them on the word of Misandry driven womens groups...
Beyond that is presumed innocence which bill 117 takes away. BTW bill 117 is the changes to the divorce act, it also incorporates the "child protection act" the "family law act" in it's interpretation. So while yes it is a bill that has passed and is now part of the dva... http://www.karenselick.com/CL0103.html one lawyers point of view...
quote:
I will not deny that there is favoritism toward women in custody cases by a LOT of judges. For years it was even an entrenched legal doctrine that younger children are usually better with their mothers " the tender years doctrine" |
Still is and that is the problem...a lot most all is an understatement.
quote:
But blackice, your statistics and the bill you cite were both misleading. When you say that 89 % of men lose custody, that would not be consistent in most people's minds with 30% getting joint custody. More accurate would be to say that only 11% get sole custody. |
As explained a break down of the facts will show that while "joint custody" is a fact so is the "primary residence clause"
This is usually 90% of the time handed to the women. The statistics are misleading but not mine...Joint custody on the average lasts until one or the other get married in most cases I will dig up the stats the woman will initiate full custody after two years or when the child goes to school. The primary residence clause allows what is called "status quo" That being since the mother had the primary residence that will remain at that point the man becomes the uncle again NOT the joint custody parent. The break down on the remaining 10% of men can be summed up real easy most are by default, the mother has died and or jailed and or incompetent or unfit as a parent. So while we cellabrate this 10% understand it is not a huge victory nor is "join custody" thus 89%...
quote:
I can understand you anger at the system as there remain many inherent biases but I tend to think that the biases in the court system tend to reflect those in society as a whole. |
I whole heartedly disagree 50% of the population are men and I assure you most do not like their kids taken away from them...A large portion of mothers do not like the idea of their children without a dad. The large majority of women do not want thier sons treated this way. A large majority of Grandparents who have no rights at all are against losing what little rights they have being the parents of the man and not seeing their grandchild for thier final hurrah in life...Let alone the uncles and aunts, cousins etc...
quote:
but you are wrong in that they are universally reffered to as VAWA |
Most all Mens groups do such as f.a.c.t. and others as they are extremely similar and enacted by the same Misandry driven womens groups read man.
quote:
I have never said this of anyone within the Apolyton community, but I will say that Blackice is nothing but a baldface liar trying to create hate against women |
Lier  your ignorance is truely bliss to you isn't it
Again it is a lie to say I promote hate against women I have done no such thing. I have made it clear many times what I am against and "women" it is not... Misandry it is and I bet you have no idea what that means? that is what I am against so take your lies heh well you know all to well I bet what to do with them heh. If you did know what it means you would be aginst it too if not for your sake but that of your children both male and female.
You on the other hand do lean towards hatered of men hummm I guess the question would be when you started hating males at what age does it apply?...
quote:
he has done nothing but print blatent lies. |
Ahhh the uneducated speaks we must all listen heh. Lies when leading you down the garden path It is painfully obvious you know nothing of this subject at all. Your arguements are uninformed, your assumptions hilarious, your knowlegde lacking at best like hows is my typing and english so far You are but opinionated period=fool.You jumped on subjects and facts without so much as a quick Google search. You read only what you needed to continue you diluded diatribe. Bravo you again proved what I have said about you from the onset...
quote:
I know this is quite a flame, but almost everything that Blackice has posted has been proven to be false. |
Only to a limited intellegence such as yours I think the educated in the know people see you for your worth...I know I do... False ayrian to I a bet
quote:
but it is unlikely that a federal senator would comment on a provincial bill. |
Please do tell more we are all ears
Back to the issue here is but one tiny little link to some of the facts as they stand on sexual harrassment in the workplace. Now imagine this does get worse than this...
http://mensrights.bizhosting.com/
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Dissident I will simply ignore what you typed it does not deserve response Maybe it does:
Rev. Martin Niemoller, commenting on events in Germany 1933-1939 said:
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and
I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to
speak up." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Niemoeller, July 1,
1937; arrested by the Third Reich...
For the record here is the complete "Ontario Hansards" record of the debate of bill 117. Oh look The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools was there my my . For those who do not know Hansards is an unedited public record of governement debates and sessions...
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_p....htm#P278_91700
Which is now law...
http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/St...UT/b117ra_e.htm
For the record "Spouse" means:
Applicants
2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons may apply for an intervention order or an emergency intervention order:
1. A spouse or former spouse, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.
2. A same-sex partner or former same-sex partner, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.
3. A person who is cohabiting with the respondent, or who has cohabited with the respondent for any period of time, whether or not they are cohabiting at the time of the application.
4. A person who is or was in a dating relationship with the respondent.
5. A relative of the respondent who resides with the respondent.
For the record:
3. Requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant’s residence, either immediately or within a specified period of time.
8. Granting the applicant exclusive possession of the residence shared by the applicant and the respondent, regardless of ownership.
9. Requiring the respondent to pay the applicant compensation for monetary losses suffered by the applicant or any child as a direct result of the domestic violence, the amount of which may be summarily determined by the court, including loss of earnings or support, medical or dental expenses, out-of-pocket expenses for injuries sustained, moving and accommodation expenses and the costs, including legal fees, of an application under this Act.
10. Granting the applicant or respondent temporary possession and exclusive use of specified personal property.
In short if you are dating someone and can not prove they do not reside with you or that your possessions are yours (as if that matters) they now own it once the "applicant" makes the claim and enacts the "emergency order" based on you guessed it a statement period...
Last edited by blackice on 01-03-2002 at 09:14
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
For the record here is the complete "Ontario Hansards" record of the debate of bill 117. Oh look The Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools was there my my . For those who do not know Hansards is an unedited public record of governement debates and sessions...
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/37_p....htm#P278_91700
Which is now law...
http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/St...UT/b117ra_e.htm
For the record "Spouse" means:
Applicants
2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the following persons may apply for an intervention order or an emergency intervention order:
1. A spouse or former spouse, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.
2. A same-sex partner or former same-sex partner, within the meaning of Part III of the Family Law Act, of the respondent.
3. A person who is cohabiting with the respondent, or who has cohabited with the respondent for any period of time, whether or not they are cohabiting at the time of the application.
4. A person who is or was in a dating relationship with the respondent.
5. A relative of the respondent who resides with the respondent.
For the record:
3. Requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant’s residence, either immediately or within a specified period of time.
8. Granting the applicant exclusive possession of the residence shared by the applicant and the respondent, regardless of ownership.
9. Requiring the respondent to pay the applicant compensation for monetary losses suffered by the applicant or any child as a direct result of the domestic violence, the amount of which may be summarily determined by the court, including loss of earnings or support, medical or dental expenses, out-of-pocket expenses for injuries sustained, moving and accommodation expenses and the costs, including legal fees, of an application under this Act.
10. Granting the applicant or respondent temporary possession and exclusive use of specified personal property.
In short if you are dating someone and can not prove they do not reside with you or that your possessions are yours (as if that matters) they now own it once the "applicant" makes the claim and enacts the "emergency order" based on you guessed it a statement period...
Posted again must have been the spam yup all lies
Last edited by blackice on 01-03-2002 at 09:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blackice
|
|
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Can you prove that as fact my bet is you can't and won't laws there are no different in many ways take just a sample:
Tennessee Shared Parenting Bill Could
Help Children, Reduce Divorce
By Glenn J. Sacks
When Angeliek Green sang lullabies to her baby girls, she caressed their foreheads and told them "mommy will always be there for her little angels. Always." She was wrong.
"I cry every night over my children," she says. "Every time I see kids in a park with their parents, or playing in a yard as I drive home from work, the wound is opened all over again."
Fifteen years ago, under pressure because of finances and personal problems, Green ceded custody of her two daughters to her ex-husband. She says:
"I thought that as a noncustodial parent [NCP] I would still have the right to be a part of their lives. It was the worst mistake of my life."
The last decade and a half has been a nightmare for Green as she has been at the mercy of an ex-husband who has disappeared with the girls for years at a time, and a vindictive stepmother who has successfully turned the girls against their mother.
Green's anguish is experienced by hundreds of thousands of NCPs across the country. Their grievances include: blocked visitation and unenforced visitation orders; "move away" spouses who use geography as a method of driving NCPs out of their children's lives; acceptance by the courts of false and/or uncorroborated accusations as a basis for denying custody or even contact between parent and child; rigid, excessive, and often punitive child support awards; a "win/lose" system which pits ex-spouses against one another by designating a custodial and a noncustodial parent; courts which in determining custody tilt heavily towards the parent who initiates the divorce, thus encouraging each parent to "strike first"; burdensome legal costs; and judicial preference for mothers over fathers as custodial parents.
The solution to the problem now lies before the Tennessee State legislature. Tennessee HB2338 / SB2406, known as the "Shared Parenting Bill," abolishes the concept of child custody and gives equal standing to both parents in a divorce. In the event that divorcing parents are unable to agree on a shared parenting plan, the bill would instruct the courts to "order a custody arrangement with the primary residential designation alternating between parents" and would require that the residential designation "reflect a substantially equal schedule" between the mother and the father. The legislation, sponsored by sponsored by state Rep. Kathryn Bowers (D-Memphis) and state Sen. Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville), allows judges to deviate from this equal arrangement only if one of the parents has committed acts which render he or she unfit, such as child abuse or domestic violence.
According to Dianna Thompson, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), the bill "will ensure that children continue to have an ongoing emotional, physical, and financial relationship with both of their parents following a divorce or separation." She says:
"Currently, we have a very adversarial court system, and destructive custody battles are largely driven by the parents' fear that they will be expelled from their children's lives. By replacing winners and losers with equals, the Shared Parenting legislation takes a lot of the anger and conflict out of divorce."
Advocates of the bill emphasize that it will lower the divorce rate, since parents won't be rewarded by the courts for being the first one to terminate a struggling relationship. In addition, they say, it encourages cooperation and even reconciliation because each parent knows that, barring proof of abuse, they will not be able to drive the other parent out of their children's lives. In fact, studies have shown that states with egalitarian custody laws have lower divorce rates than "win/lose" states like Tennessee. And because the bill leaves few legal issues for parents to fight over, instead of spending thousands of dollars on court and legal fees, divorcing parents can spend the money on their children.
Melanie Mays, a Memphis mother of two and a member of Child's Best Interest, the nonprofit group which sponsored the legislation, believes that Tennessee's children need the Shared Parenting Bill. She says:
"It's shameful what our current system is doing to our children. I see good, decent parents, usually fathers, being locked out of their children's lives. It's as if they are being thrown away. I see children who love and need both parents and can't understand why they can't see the noncustodial parent. It's a horror, and it needs to be changed."
www.GlennJSacks.com
Just a small sample very tinnie minute so small other states make this "possible" advance look like a monument to mankind. You too seem to know nothing about any of the facts yet debunk them as you go based on your own bias. Myths motivate thoughts facts change them...Yup sure seems like YOU have no problems at all...yup appears women in this case are speaking up, you should check out what the mens groups in the area have to say about the "fair" and "just" laws you have er VAWA as an example...read it take a breath first you'll need it...
Last edited by blackice on 01-03-2002 at 09:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Yet, the writer provides no proof that MacKinnon is lying. In other words, MacKinnon says I don't believe in this, and the writer responds, yes you do. |
While you are correct that this is a poor argument from the author of the article, it is nonetheless correct. MacKinnon has stated in the past that all sexual contact at the workplace is sexual haressment. She is being disengenuous if she says she never supported that position. Her ally, Andrea Dworkin has gone further, at one time stating, "all sex is rape." (I do not, here, wish to state that MacKinnon is guilty by association, but rather show an extreme version of this ideology, although, in fact, both MacKinnon and Dworkin have extremely Victorian views on sexual relationship--women must be protected from men--they also do not represent much of the mature feminist movement. Using them to bash feminism is like using Pat Robertson to bash all Christianity)
If MacKinnon no longer adhere's to these views, great. We should not berate her for her past views, but neither should we defend her unconditionally.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 01-03-2002 at 09:36
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
Congrats, Blackice. You're now batting one in 20. That's pretty pathetic for a guy who claims that he has studied this issue for five years.
Getting one thing right does not make you an expert and it hardly makes up for the old lies and new mistakes, (deliberate distortion of the facts?) that you are making.
Lets rip apart your latest propaganda. (Yeah, I know, this is like shooting fish in the barrel, but Blackice seems to enjoy having himself shown to be a fool.)
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
In short if you are dating someone and can not prove they do not reside with you or that your possessions are yours (as if that matters) they now own it once the "applicant" makes the claim and enacts the "emergency order" based on you guessed it a statement period...
|
Wrong. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act specifically states:
"an intervention order or an emergency intervention order does not in any manner affect the title to or an ownership interest in any real or personal property jointly held by the applicant and respondent or solely held by one of them.
Furthermore, the courts would have to be satisfied that the women lives where she claims to live. This would require testimony of a police officer or some other proof (e.g. mail with addresss). The burden of proof is not on the respondent.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
3. Requiring the respondent to vacate the applicant’s residence, either immediately or within a specified period of time.
|
Note that if a woman seeks a court order this means that a man would have to leave the women's residence.
Anyone object to that? Other than Blackice of course. 
This law allows the courts to issue an emergency order without the accused being in the court. If, and only if, the following three things have occurred:
(a) domestic violence has occurred;
(b) a person or property is at risk of harm or damage; and
(c) the matter must be dealt with on an urgent and temporary basis for the protection of the person or property that is at risk of harm or damage.
Note that if (a) occurs, but not (c) then an emergency order cannot be granted.
If an order is granted, the law guarantees the accused a full hearing, where the accused would be present, within 14 to 44 days.
So, if a man is accused of domestic violence, he is guaranteed his right to present his side of the case in court. And Blackice wants to compare men to the Jews who were hauled away and murdered by the Nazis. Give us a break.
Give it up Blackice. Your messages simply dig yourself deeper into the hole and show that you are a fool.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
oh you mean the act that to your inept google search you claim to be a bill?
|
I've never claimed any act is a bill. You're the one that claims that refers to Bill 117 as if it was law when in fact it became the Domestic Violence Protection Act is called the VAWA.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
When the police show up she says she lives there and? I guess the police say ok or do they INVESTIGATE it is her word.
|
No, the police would look for signs that she lived there (e.g. clothes). So if you are living by yourself and the woman doesn't have any belongings in the house, then the cops would not accept her word for it.
I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.
I expect that your next post will claim that the police have all been brainwashed by the evil cabel of Feminists.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
Ok phase two now that you do live there you have mail sent there I mean you have 14 days minimum plus adjournments you simply have no idea of what goes on at all none no iota zilch nadda.
|
Oh yeah, that would fool the judge, and your lawyer.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
The fact remains you can lose it all...I think I said that no?Yes
|
Oh well, if you said it then it must be true, despite the fact that the Act specifically says you are wrong. But hey, Ontario courts are not governed by laws, they are governed by the words of Blackice.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
You simply miss the point do you honestly believe your day in court is it
|
Oh, you're right. Men's voices are never heard in the legal system. That's why you'll never get custody of your kids. Oh, wait. You did get custody of your child. Guess they must have thought you were a woman.
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
You are missing the entire reason for the stink this law is ABUSED and can be ABUSED without repercussions....
|
More propaganda. Baseless lies. Bill 117 became an act in Dec. 2000. Shows us the proof that this Act has been abused. Where's the proof?
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
So How did your x lose the kids anyway |
Simple. Her second husband testified against her. The friends of her second husband testified against her. The first husband testified against her. She lost.
It just proves that the legal system works both ways. Sometimes the man loses. Sometimes the women loses.
So Mr. "I've been studying for five years so I'm the Expert," here's a question for you. How come almost everything you post is wrong? Time and time again, you have posted incorrect information that has been proven false. Why don't you just admit that you are wrong.
Last edited by Tingkai on 01-03-2002 at 13:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
blackice
of everything you have poseted I can agree with the following
1. there do remain some biases against men but they are largely the same societal biases that see more women than men stay home with the kids when the couple is together-- generally the primary caregiver before the breakup wins custody
2. Any "emergency" remedy can be subject to abuse and yes, an innocent father can be summarily removed from his home.
However, this legislation is a reaction to the situation where a truly powerless woman with kids could not afford to move out (perhaps hubby controls the money) and needs to end a truly abusive situation. Any test must balance the interests of of protecting people against the interest of remaining in the home. Whether you like it or not, a court will be more concerned about protecting possible abuse victims-- and some abuse is real-- early in my career I acted on a couple of child apprehensions. Reading the file ( and then seeing the photos) . . . lets just say there are some sick people out there.
But know something . . . the system does come to a just solution in the majority of cases. Are there wrong decisions, abuse and sometimes heartache ?-- yup, I'll agree with that. But the system works reasonably well in a majority of cases. . . and it EVENTUALLY reaches the correct result in a vast majority of cases. the problem to be solved is those situations where it does not work
______
The personal story you relate, if accurate, would give you great cause to question the system and even to be a bit bitter . . . Any father in the circumstance you relate . . .wow
However, despite your study of the issue, most of your legal conclusions are just wrong, wrong wrong. First of all, most judges would not give an exclusive possession order for a non-owned property unless there were children involved. Its just simpler to have the woman move out. So your suggestion that some woman you are dating will LEGALLY take your property is wrong and ridiculous. Really, do you think that a 2 week live-in girlfriend will get to take your house ?? get serious !!
Criminal law -- none of these are provisions are criminal law but there can be overlap between the federal criminal law and the provincial regulatory offences in just the same way that a traffic offence can be punished provincially under their regulatory regime as well as federally under the Criminal Code.
There are so many errors among your other legal assertions and its late . . so I will wait until tomorrow to see what else you come up with
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
DP
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2002 22:54
|