madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index madmark.myfastforum.org
Fuck the system!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

They won't ban the bomb, but they ban me.

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Here we go again.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:26 am    Post subject: They won't ban the bomb, but they ban me.  Reply with quote

If they haven't deleted it, you can see how the Democratic Party operates from this item I posted on opednews. Please don't comment or post there.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8530

August 8, 2008 at 12:11:19     Permalink

Censorship on OpEdNews.

Diary Entry by Mark E. Smith    [EDIT]

(1.0 from 1 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It
 

Tell A Friend

I published a poll which was accepted and got four votes before I got a notice that it was being deleted. Meanwhile a much less meaningful poll was allowed to remain.

::::::::

Here's the poll that I posted:
Poll

How Many Votes Does Obama Need?

It has finally been proven that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and that Kerry won the popular vote in 2004. But both conceded to Bush. Yet Democrats still appear to believe that if Obama wins the popular vote, he might not concede to McCain. What is the magic threshhold popular vote that could stop a Democratic presidential candidate from conceding to a Republican?

If Obama gets a simple majority of the popular vote, he won't concede.
If Obama gets at least 60% of the popular vote he won't concede.
Obama would need at least 70% of the popular vote not to concede.
There is no magic threshhold -- Democrats don't count the votes.

4 votes View Results and Comments

Here are the results before it was removed:
Poll

How Many Votes Does Obama Need?

It has finally been proven that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and that Kerry won the popular vote in 2004. But both conceded to Bush. Yet Democrats still appear to believe that if Obama wins the popular vote, he might not concede to McCain. What is the magic threshhold popular vote that could stop a Democratic presidential candidate from conceding to a Republican?

If Obama gets a simple majority of the popular vote, he won't concede.
25% from 1 votes
If Obama gets at least 60% of the popular vote he won't concede.
0% from 0 votes

Obama would need at least 70% of the popular vote not to concede.
0% from 0 votes

There is no magic threshhold -- Democrats don't count the votes.
75% from 3 votes

4 votes Vote View Demographics Cross-Tab Results



Here's the letter from the editor accepting the poll:
Administrator to me

show details 5:17 AM (4 hours ago) [htmlcode.html]


Reply

Thank you for submitting a poll to Op Ed News.

Your poll titled How Many Votes Does Obama Need?
has been accepted and is now published on the Op Ed News website at:
http://www.opednews.com/Poll/How-...a-by-Mark-E-Smith-080808-864.html

This poll was submitted with tags 2008 Election Presidential, Democratic, Obama-Barack
And groups:

Thank you again.


Op Ed News Administrator



And here's the new letter removing the poll:
Administrator to me

show details 9:31 AM (33 minutes ago) [htmlcode.html]


Reply

Thank you for submitting a poll to Op Ed News.

You submitted a poll titled:
How Many Votes Does Obama Need?

This poll was submitted with tags 2008 Election Presidential, Democratic, Obama-Barack
And groups:

Thank you but this article doesn't fit our website. However, we do appreciate your help. And suggest that you please try again.



Op Ed News Administrator


P.S. just not a well designed poll that will give meaningful info. A simpler one, will obama concede if the vote is close, if there are concerns about vote theft or election abuses? That would work. Your percentages don't make sense.

Your Original Submission is attached to this email

Please do NOT reply to this email; no one will see it.

If you'd like to reply to the editor, you may click the following link
to enter a message for the editor:
http://www.opednews.com/Messages/Anon2-490



And here's the sort of poll that Rob himself posts that he apparently believes is well-designed to give meaningful information:


Poll

Votingwise, Are you Sane or Psychotic?


Are you sane or Psychotic-- voting to end Eight Years of Shock Doctrine Presidency or Deludedly Supporting McCain, by voting for Him or any Third Party Candidate?

Any vote for anyone other than less than perfect Obama, who there is plenty to object about, is a vote for McCain, a vote for continuing with another four or more years of Disaster Capitalism, apocalyptic presidency. Anyway you slice it, votes for McKinney, Barr or Nader is a sign of irrationality at best, insanity at worst, IF you are in a swing state.

I'm voting for Obama even though he's far from perfect
58% from 80 votes
I'm sanely voting for a 3rd party in a safe blue state or hopeless red state.
30% from 42 votes
I'm Hebephrenic. Who are McKinney, Barr and Nader?
0% from 0 votes

I am irrationally voting for a 3rd party candidate even though I live in a swing state
12% from 17 votes

Mark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.
Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author


Bookmark this page: (what's this?)



Better World OrderErik Larson, Human Being and concerned Citizen. Member of 911Truth.org Advisory Board. Opinions expressed here are my own. I only advocate and practice non-violent methods of social and political activism & change.

Recommended links:
9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

http://www.911truth.org/downloads...20Cmte%20review%20of%20Report.pdf

JusticeFor911.org Complaint and Petition
http://justicefor91...

to see more of bio, click on member name


thoughts

i posted 2 comments on Rob's push poll, but didn't vote as the way the choices were worded were insulting and inflammatory, seemingly more guided by frustration than a desire to feel out public opinion. I understand Rob's frustration, he writes a lot of great articles and opednews is very valuable service, although some of the editorial decisions around here are very disappointing.

Mark's poll questions are somewhat less pushing and inflammatory than Rob's, but the editor does have a point; why not post a poll that doesn't push, and see what happens?

IMHO, if Rob's poll isn't deleted for the same reasons Mark's poll was deleted, Mark's ought to get reposted. This is a privately-owned and controlled website, and content is determined by those running it, and it's currently one of the best ones that i've found. However, users will go elsewhere and competitors will no doubt emerge and become more popular, if People are perceiving attempts to manipulate opinion, not encourage public discussion, debate and dialogue so that the facts, truths and best ideas can emerge.

This is a very important question, for the reasons Mark outlined; Bush didn't win 2000 or 2004, and evidence was emerging at the time that proved this; neither Gore nor Kerry, with their responsibility to the People and the Constitution, had any honest business conceding. So, with the electronic election in 2008 currently having no safeguards to prevent theft, let alone standard Rethug dirty tricks and disenfranchisement.  

Who's afraid of a transparent and accountable electoral process? Will the "liberal" media be making public the (true) results of exit polls?  Will they report on "anomalies" and evidence of fraud in 2008?

by Better World Order (4 articles, 381 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 819 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 1:20:07 PM



Steven LeserSteven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of t...

to see more of bio, click on member name


Rob is, in general, much more lenient than I would be

Your one example is, unfortunately, completely dependant on a contrast between your own submission and that of the site owner. I dont happen to have a problem with Rob as the owner of the site and person who puts in ungodly amounts of time and money into it being given more slack in terms of editorial quality of his polls and submissions.

That being said, I think your poll brings up a good point that needs to be discussed. One of the points I would bring up in that discussion is, if an election is stolen, how can you bring up enough proof quickly enough to satisfy a populace that tends to view the person who comes in second in the initial count/reading in ANY contest and objects as a sore loser.

That is our culture. I realize that a baseball/football/tennis etc. game/match has a completely different level of importance, but people who protest those things and claim they lost due to cheating or mistakes or rule infractions face the same culturally driven response.

The question is how to overcome this, particularly in the realm of politics where the opposition will be keen to push all of the buttons in the general psyche that helps bring out the typical response.



by Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1288 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 2:35:59 PM




Mark E. SmithMark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.


Yes, this is Rob's site.

On OpEdNews Rob is the decider.

I'm sure that if you were the decider, Steven, you would be, as you say, a lot less "lenient."

And I'm sure that if Bush, Cheney, or Rove was the decider, they would be less lenient still.

The site, however, is not a penal institution or a police state. It is supposedly a site that is open to political news and commentary.

Is it possible for a person to have power and not be corrupted by it? If I make the rules, is it possible for me to apply those rules to myself the same way that I apply them to others?

I'm 68 years old and I've been using interactive websites for more than 25 years. I can't tell you how many companies I've worked for where the owners or the personnel department used their hiring and firing power to provide themselves with attractive young females, I've lost track of how many websites I've posted to where the site owners used their sites as their personal playground. Power does tend to corrupt. That said, I'm also a leftie and I know of examples of people who were able to resist being corrupted by power to some extent.

Our electoral system is corrupt. A few years ago I was an observer at a local voting precinct and the precinct inspector refused to allow me to copy the numbers from his tally sheet. There were two precincts voting in the same room and the one across the room not only allowed me to copy the numbers, but reminded the other inspector that I have the legal right to do so. But he had the power to prevent me from exercising my rights and he abused his power. Both inspectors had power, but only one had become corrupted by it. Actually, I believe that he was corrupt before he became a precinct inspector.

Across the country in November there will be precincts with honest elections officials who will allow the public to observe the election, and precincts with corrupt elections officials who will block the public in every way possible from observing the election. So relying on observers and monitors is not likely to succeed in many places. Wherever there is secrecy and a lack of transparency, such as in the places where votes are counted by privately-owned central tabulators (80% of all U.S. vote, no matter how they are cast, are counted in this manner), it is impossible for anyone to know the results with enough certainly to have the basis for a valid protest prior to the "winner" being announced.

My poll was indeed a push poll. It didn't matter what the numbers were. Even if there was not a single vote for McCain, and even if every single voter in the country voted for Obama, there is no way that anyone could be certain that was what happened and no way to prevent the elections officials and the media from announcing McCain the winner based on fraudulent "results" from pre-programmed central tabulators. Obama will have no way of knowing if he actually won or lost, any more than the voters will, or any more than Gore or Kerry did.

That's one of the main reasons why I advocate not voting.

There are many other reasons.





by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 851 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 3:09:34 PM





Tony ForestAn ex-Pat for going on 30 years and still no sign of homesickness. Oh how sweet it is to be free to roam and never go home.


slanted

Things are beginning to appear to have a slight slant to one side. What once was "open" is now being transformed into "selective". It's obvious to many and our gurus are already packing. This is not a healthy trend or atmosphere.

I agree with BWO's statement....

   IMHO, if Rob's poll isn't deleted for the same reasons Mark's poll was deleted, Mark's ought to get reposted.  

and this affair is giving me fuel and inspiration to feed the fire.  

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 11 quicklinks, 124 diaries, 1097 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 3:07:58 PM





Mark E. SmithMark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.


Taking things seriously.

When somebody asks me for something, I want to know if they're serious.

For example, suppose somebody asks me for money, and I say I'll go to the ATM right across the street in full view and get them some and be right back. But when I return, they aren't there. I have to assume they weren't serious, because if they wanted the money, they'd have waited.  They could see that I was serious and that I did cross the street and use the ATM. So if they had really wanted the money, they'd have waited until I got back with it.

I feel the same way about elections. When somebody asks for my vote, but doesn't bother to ensure that my vote is counted, no less counted accurately, I don't think they're serious about wanting my vote. I voted for most of my life and I took it seriously, but in recent years the people I voted for did not. They didn't even bother to ensure that my vote was counted before conceding. So I concluded that they weren't serious and didn't really want my vote, no matter what else they said or did. Anyone who really, seriously wants something, is going to take the trouble to make sure that they get it once you offer to give it to them. If they don't, they didn't really want it in the first place.

So that's what my "push poll" was really about. If there is psychosis involved in voting, my opinion is that it would be voting for somebody who doesn't even care if your vote is counted. And since there is no possible way in our current elections system to ensure that our votes are counted, that would apply to everyone running for office. It may seem like oversimplification, but I believe that there are only three kinds of people who play in crooked card games--the crooks, the shills, and the suckers. The crooks and the shills know the game is rigged and don't care because they profit from it, and the suckers either know that the game is rigged and don't care, or else they don't know that the game is rigged and they're being taken. So you can figure out who's who by looking at who profits from a rigged game, and in the case of our elections it isn't the voters.







by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 851 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 3:23:51 PM




StanimalStanimal is a concerned citizen of planet Earth, wanting to promote fairness and harmony with fellow inhabitants.


Why would be voting for a third party

candidate be irrational?

I don't consider my vote for Mike Gravel to be irrational, I find the people voting for Obama illogical. As he wavers from his former stance to his newly accept ones.

I want true change in the Executive, not just window dressing, and Obama has shown he has changed his positions to satisfy the "Establishment".

by Stanimal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 363 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:05:16 PM





Mark E. SmithMark is an anti-civilizationist in San Diego.


Software risks.

Apparently my poll had accidentally been submitted twice, although I was totally unware of this.

So only one of them was rejected and the other one is still there.

It looks like one editor found the poll to be acceptable, while a different editor thought that it was "just not a well designed poll that will give meaningful info," that the percentages didn't "make sense," and that it didn't "fit" this website.

I'm trying to figure out how I could have accidentally submitted it twice. I know I revised it more than once, and I suppose it could have happened during that process. In any event there was acceptance by one editor and rejection by another, so I consider it a fortuitous accident.

Now I'm starting to feel some sympathy towards Rob. He apparently doesn't have the time to be in total control of everything here, so there is a certain amount of chaos.



by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 851 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:07:17 PM




Mr MCurrently I'm a cartoonist and contributing writer for The New Orleans Levee.


Murphy's Golden Rule applies ...

This is Mr. Rob Kall's site and as such he, and those he relies on, have the final word and as sites go I find OEN to be one of the best going.

Because Mr. Kall does have a rather loose editorial standard, in that near all subjects are given a shot, and as long as one conducts themselves in a civil manner, you can pretty much post anything you wish. And being that one doesn't have to be a scholar to get posted, there will be levels from good to bad.

Mr. Kall himself has admitted to not being a professional pollster and I admit to being one of those that pointed that out - he's only humane.

Not all my posts are brilliant. (no matter how much I believe they are)

Be thankful we have OEN - if things keep going downhill as fast as they seem to be we'll be lucky to have a free Internet 2 years from now.

Besides - Mr. Kall was kinder than I would have been. IMO, your poll was stupid.

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1117 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:38:15 PM





Rob KallRob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as o...

to see more of bio, click on member name


apparently...

You posted the poll twice.    Another editor must have approved the one that went live. And I'm not even sure another editor approved it. I think this was the very first poll to be rejected. You see,  I saw your poll and it was pretty much the worst poll I've seen yet. So I rejected it, only to find it was already live. So I deleted it. I've actually checked to see with the webmaster to see if there is a glitch in the poll system so your poll was

Mark, you were banned from the site once before.  Be careful. No three strikes here. Your sour grapes are whiney and pathetic. I didn't outright reject he poll. I told you to revise it so it made more sense. I usually welcome feedback, but I don't need you telling me how to edit, especially when it's a sour grapes response. I have 35+ editors and work with the editorial team to make decisions when needed. But your poll was so lame, it was the first to be rejected.

Now, you have a choice, turn up the fire on this "discussion" or not. It's your call. I'd think twice.



And we've been through this censorship talk before. You have the right to post whatever you want on YOUR website. The government won't stop you. But here, on OpEdNews.com, editors DO have a say.



by Rob Kall (734 articles, 3783 quicklinks, 313 diaries, 1551 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 4:50:22 PM





Frank J. RanelliFrank J. Ranelli is an editorial writer, a research author and critic. He is also a senior editor for OpEdNews. His erudite and chic style of writing has been lauded and extensively published in a variety of news outlets and across the Internet. These include the Naples Daily News, The Online Journal, Information Clearing House, Alternet, The Smirking Chimp, and the former progressive journal of thought, Wicked Philosophy. Frank is currently working on his upcoming book, Rise of the Authoritaria...

to see more of bio, click on member name


Wrong on Censorship

Mark,

This "censorship accusation" is threadbare and tedious.

In the end, Op Ed News reserves the right to edit, modify, change, alter, or reject an author's submission if we feel it does not properly reflect the mission of Op Ed News, it is poorly written, fails to meet certain copy standards and guidelines, or will bring more heat than light to any given subject, poll, submission, link or editorial.

This is the nature of responsible journalism and remains a cornerstone of our convictions to develop and publish a quality online news and opinion medium.

Furthermore, your accusations about censorship are utterly without merit. You are free to post and say whatever you wish on you own blog, for instance. You are also free to vocalize your view(s) among anyone within earshot.

Op Ed News is a non-profit, online news and opinion entity, founded and directed by Rob Kall,  which retains the ultimate right to decide which submissions are published and which ones are not. This is explained and part of your AGREEMENT with Op Ed News when you sign up as a member.

Please bear this in mind before you post another scurrilous diary full of specious allegations.

Frank J. Ranelli
Senior Editor, OEN

by Frank J. Ranelli (61 articles, 141 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 337 comments) on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 8:58:04 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------



Georgianne Nienaber, who I consider to be one of the best writers on the web, was also just forced off opednews. This is election season and the Democrats aren't going to tolerate anyone who cares about human life and doesn't support wars of aggression.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hoop



Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 11



PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ranelli is a veteran gatekeeper Mark... didn't you know?
Smirking Chimp comes to mind.. remember THAT place?

Smilie_PDT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paulmb
Guest







PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:32 am    Post subject: My house my rules if you dont obey please go! Reply with quote

A bit contradictory what FJ Ranelli and R Kall write but like"Mr. M"they are missing the point,advertently if you ask me,in defence of a personal principal above the basic journalistic principals of freedom of expression of OEN.Basicaly they are saying "...although we believe in the freedom of the press we reserve the right as OEN site owners to edit or reject that which we believe is not acceptable...".So in principal that was that with a open editorial non manipulated News website.I am also wondering if they are purposely pretending not to relise Marks Pol was a push Poll.Writer"Better World Order"hit it in a nut shell right at the beginning and who ever doesnt relise that a voting system using mostly privately owned Electric Tabulators cannot be trusted(putting it mildly!)should think again(puting it mildly!).Mark well done YOU"smoked them out"!. Laughing
Back to top
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Paul. In his newsletter yesterday, Rob said that he is writing a book on bottom-up systems. So I finally responded to his comment where he wrote:

Quote:
Now, you have a choice, turn up the fire on this "discussion" or not. It's your call. I'd think twice.


My response:
--------------------------------------

Making sense.

Rob wrote:

   
Quote:
I didn't outright reject the poll. I told you to revise it so it made more sense.


That is correct. You wrote:

   
Quote:
Your percentages don't make sense.


That's the problem in a nutshell. Since the decision to concede or not to concede is made BEFORE the votes are counted, there are no possible percentages that would make sense.

Will you be including your comment and those of Steven, Mr. M, and Frank in your forthcoming book on bottom-up systems?

-------------------------------------


I'm surprised that he hasn't banned me for responding, since any response at all could be interpreted as "turning up the fire" and therefore grounds for banning, but perhaps he hasn't seen my comment yet.

Rob writing a book on bottom-up systems seems to me like Bush writing a book on the Constitution. Bush says the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper. So I wonder if Rob's book will be about why bottom-up systems can't work and shouldn't be attempted. Or maybe he left the "s" off and what he meant was, "Bottoms up!"  

Despite his talk about working with editors, it is obvious from his comments that he was totally unaware that an editor had accepted my poll, and that he made an executive decision to reject it without consulting anyone else.

Their authoritarian attitude isn't going to win them any voters, but they know that. They aren't interested in attracting voters, since the votes aren't going to be counted anyway. The time and money that the Democrats and Republicans spend on campaigning is designed to make it look like the U.S. has democratic elections with popular support, when it does not. Half of our electorate doesn't vote and at least 80% of those who do vote have to hold their noses when they do it. Polls show that Congress has an 11% approval rating and both candidates are members of Congress.

I remember posting a story critical of John Kerry on democraticunderground.com many years ago. There were close to a hundred comments and about 75% of them disagreed with me, but they were all written by the same three people. The comments that agreed with me were all written by different people who greatly outnumbered the site's hit crew.

Rob can be very childish. A couple of years back when he banned me from OEN it was for comparing him to Rupert Murdoch. Rob had posted a link to a story with pictures of naked females in sexual poses that was in the news, and he asked readers if they thought that was appropriate for a progressive website. Most said that it was, but I disagreed and said I thought that some of his female readers and editors might find it offensive. He defended his action, saying that it would bring more readers to his website. I responded by saying that certainly was a technique that had worked for Murdoch, and Rob posted a diary to say that I was "full of shit" and then banned me.

What I gather from his call for non-political stories, is that he and his Democratic Party crew want to post all the political stories, and he wants readers and writers to post stories about sports, travel, movies, food, or anything else that might attract readers, to compensate for the fact that his obvious propaganda will only drive people away. If he dared, I suppose he might also have asked for stories about naked ladies. ROFL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hoop, I do remember the chimp website, but I haven't looked at it in so many years that I don't remember any of the people there. But I would think that the Democratic Party's paid political operatives can't limit themselves to only one site and that the same ones would be posting to several of their cheerleader/gatekeeper sites.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
paulmb
Guest







PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:08 am    Post subject: OEN Reply with quote

Its strange Mark that if I(who has in comparison a limited general knowledge about USA Politics) understood your point about the percentages not making sense that Rob didnt quite get it!(?).But also he doesnt SEEM relise how obvious it is that he didnt consult others before taking action against you.Somehow the whole thing stinks not-just the main  issue here.Oh yes by the way I wrote on purpose and sarcasticaly"Mrs M"instead of "Mr M"-no problem,just that you know. Very Happy
Back to top
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Paul.

Rob has a purpose, to promote the Democratic Party, so he simply won't consider facts that do not help his purpose.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Here we go again. All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum