Do humans have a symbiotic relationship with any animals/forms of life in nature? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 01-16-2010, 08:12 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Do we humans actually do a "net good" for the world and nature or would the world generally be better off if humans were exterminated? That is, would there be less suffering in the world without humans? By no means am I arguing that we should kill all humans but it would be nice to think that we do do something valuable for the world. Or any other way of wording what I'm asking is, if you take your reasons for going vegan to their full logical conclusion, is it still possible to justify humans' existence?
Bonn1997 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 01-16-2010, 08:22 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Do we humans actually do a "net good" for the world and nature or would the world generally be better off if humans were exterminated? That is, would there be less suffering in the world without humans? By no means am I arguing that we should kill all humans but it would be nice to think that we do do something valuable for the world. Or any other way of wording what I'm asking is, if you take your reasons for going vegan to their full logical conclusion, is it still possible to justify humans' existence?



We do not do "net good", either individually or as a species. There are probably a few individuals who do "net good" ( a possible example is Jane Goodall), but that net good consists of counteractig or minimizig, to some extent, the net harm done by other humans.
mlp is offline  
#3 Old 01-16-2010, 08:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kibbleforlola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

We do not do "net good", either individually or as a species. There are probably a few individuals who do "net good" ( a possible example is Jane Goodall), but that net good consists of counteractig or minimizig, to some extent, the net harm done by other humans.



I agree.

Who needs sleep when we've got love?
Who needs keys when we've got clubs?
Who needs please when we've got guns?
Who needs peace when we've gone above?
Kibbleforlola is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 01-16-2010, 08:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
So is it justifiable then to actually advocate for veg*nism on moral grounds or is someone who does that basically saying, "Both veg*ns and non-veg*ns do lots of harm to planet. Veg*ns cause slightly less harm and where they draw the line about the acceptable amount of harm is, for some reason, the justifiable location to draw the line."
Bonn1997 is offline  
#5 Old 01-16-2010, 08:41 AM
Veggie Regular
 
stanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,282
The earth would be much better off without humans.
stanie is offline  
#6 Old 01-16-2010, 08:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
stanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

So is it justifiable then to actually advocate for veg*nism on moral grounds or is someone who does that basically saying, "Both veg*ns and non-veg*ns do lots of harm to planet. Veg*ns cause slightly less harm and where they draw the line about the acceptable amount of harm is, for some reason, the justifiable location to draw the line."



Vegetarians do slightly less damage than the average meat eater, vegans do a less damage than that, but we all still contribute to destruction of this planet.
stanie is offline  
#7 Old 01-16-2010, 08:43 AM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,721
No, humans suck.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#8 Old 01-16-2010, 08:54 AM
Beginner
 
mangogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanie View Post

The earth would be much better off without humans.

I totally agree!!!

"I don't want to tamper with natural ignorance. It's the key to happiness.
Ignorance is the key. Too much knowledge and you're doomed."

"The Animals of the planet are in desperate peril. Without free animal life I believe we will lose the spiritual equivalent of oxygen. "
mangogirl is offline  
#9 Old 01-16-2010, 08:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanie View Post

Vegetarians do slightly less damage than the average meat eater, vegans do a less damage than that, but we all still contribute to destruction of this planet.



Am I the only one here who finds this depressing? I used to actually think that by being a vegan and by having what I think is an important job (as a professor) I was actually doing the world some good.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#10 Old 01-16-2010, 09:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
stanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Am I the only one here who finds this depressing? I used to actually think that by being a vegan and by having what I think is an important job (as a professor) I was actually doing the world some good.



Yes, you probably are doing good, but it doesnt take away the fact that we are all responsible for the mess humans leave.

Why do we bother? I bother because i cant sit back knowing animals are in slaughterhouses right at this minute, with a bolt to their heads.
stanie is offline  
#11 Old 01-16-2010, 09:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanie View Post

Yes, you probably are doing good, but it doesnt take away the fact that we are all responsible for the mess humans leave.

Why do we bother? I bother because i cant sit back knowing animals are in slaughterhouses right at this minute, with a bolt to their heads.

Do you feel like where you draw the line (regarding what humans should and should not do to other animals) is at least somewhat arbitrary though?
Bonn1997 is offline  
#12 Old 01-16-2010, 09:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
stanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Do you feel like where you draw the line (regarding what humans should and should not do to other animals) is at least somewhat arbitrary though?



I dont understand the question.
stanie is offline  
#13 Old 01-16-2010, 10:01 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanie View Post

I dont understand the question.



Well, I apologize if I make any mistaken assumptions but if you are like me, you probably have drawn the following lines



It's not OK to

breed animals for the purpose of them killing each other (like cockfighting or dogfighting)

eat meat

violently abuse domestic pets

eat eggs

conduct research on (nonhuman) animals

drink milk

starve your pet to death

wear leather

run puppy mills



But it is OK (or maybe it's not OK but I do it anyway) to:

-drive your car for non-survival purposes

-Spray pesticides (or at least I suspect you would if you lived in a house that would otherwise fall down)

-own a computer ("the average personal computer requires ten times its weight in chemicals and fossil fuels to produce. http://www.freakingnews.com/Green-Co...tures--179.asp

-heat a house with heating oil



Other people will have drawn slightly different lines. Are there any compelling philosophical reasons for drawing the line at this point? The statement "I'd feel bad about farm animals if I contributed to their suffering" is understandable but such a statement combined with the behaviors (driving, owning a computer...) above leads to a logical incoherent lifestyle.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#14 Old 01-16-2010, 10:09 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

So is it justifiable then to actually advocate for veg*nism on moral grounds or is someone who does that basically saying, "Both veg*ns and non-veg*ns do lots of harm to planet. Veg*ns cause slightly less harm and where they draw the line about the acceptable amount of harm is, for some reason, the justifiable location to draw the line."



Everyone (with the possible exception of sociopaths and psychopaths) draws the line somewhere. Is it arbitrary? Sure. I don't think arbitrarinness in this regard can be avoided, short of killing oneself, and even that is an arbitrary decision, because, in that case, stopping the harm one does to the planet/life as a whole is chosen over the harm one causes to those who care about one/for whom one is responsible.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Am I the only one here who finds this depressing? I used to actually think that by being a vegan and by having what I think is an important job (as a professor) I was actually doing the world some good.



It's a natural enough conceit, to imagine one is doing more good than harm. It makes life easier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Well, I apologize if I make any mistaken assumptions but if you are like me, you probably have drawn the following lines



It's not OK to

breed animals for the purpose of them killing each other (like cockfighting or dogfighting)

eat meat

violently abuse domestic pets

eat eggs

conduct research on (nonhuman) animals

drink milk

starve your pet to death

wear leather

run puppy mills



But it is OK (or maybe it's not OK but I do it anyway) to:

-drive your car for non-survival purposes

-Spray pesticides (or at least I suspect you would if you lived in a house that would otherwise fall down)

-own a computer ("the average personal computer requires ten times its weight in chemicals and fossil fuels to produce. http://www.freakingnews.com/Green-Co...tures--179.asp

-heat a house with heating oil



Are there any compelling philosophical reasons for drawing the line at this point?



Not really.
mlp is offline  
#15 Old 01-16-2010, 10:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
sosoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Do we humans actually do a "net good" for the world and nature or would the world generally be better off if humans were exterminated? That is, would there be less suffering in the world without humans? By no means am I arguing that we should kill all humans but it would be nice to think that we do do something valuable for the world. Or any other way of wording what I'm asking is, if you take your reasons for going vegan to their full logical conclusion, is it still possible to justify humans' existence?



Can you justify other species existence? How many other species does a one have to be symbiotic with to be justified?
sosoy is offline  
#16 Old 01-16-2010, 10:11 AM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy View Post

Can you justify other species existence? How many other species does a one have to be symbiotic with to be justified?



Just one. One whole species has to be symbiotic with another.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#17 Old 01-16-2010, 10:15 AM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosoy View Post

Can you justify other species existence? How many other species does a one have to be symbiotic with to be justified?



That's not really the issue, though, is it? Isn't it up to each species to justify its own existence? By virtue of our ability to egage in philosophical thought, we are currently the only species on this planet for who this is an issue.
mlp is offline  
#18 Old 01-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Are there any compelling philosophical reasons for drawing the line at this point?

Yes, I think most items on your first list constitute exploitation whereas the items on your second list don't, and I would argue that a) exploitation necessitates holding the victims as objects and commodities in a way that harm as such does not b) the status of non-humans as objects and commodities is the source of the problem, and indifference towards animals in e.g. environmentally harmful behavior is a consequence.



However, this argument doesn't really provide a reason why only avoiding the first list would be enough, morally; it merely provides a reason for drawing a relevant moral distinction. I think you can see the same distinction in Francione's work, in that the central target of his moral objection is the property status of animals, which he sees as the source of the ethical problem in our treatment of other species.



--



As to your original question, I don't think the question "can mankind be justified" makes much sense, as long as no one is in possession of a doomsday device. We're never choosing between whether mankind exists or not, so I don't see the point in asking the justification of something we have no control over; we can only choose whether to do the individual act of procreation (or an individual act of killing someone).

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#19 Old 01-16-2010, 10:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Vegmedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Do we humans actually do a "net good" for the world and nature or would the world generally be better off if humans were exterminated?



I don't think that humans do a "net good." Whether or not the world would be better off without humans is a judgement made based on what you believe the world and nature should be. If you go back to the early life on the planet the atmosphere was free of oxygen and full of a diversity of single-celled life. Then along came cyanobacteria which harnessed the energy of Sun, exploded in numbers, and polluted the atmosphere with oxygen which was toxic to every living thing on earth, including themselves.



Lynn Margulis wrote:



"This was by far the greatest crisis the earth has ever endured. Many kinds of microbes were immediately wiped out. Microbial life had no defence against this cataclysm except the standard way of DNA replication and duplication, gene transfer and mutation. From multiple deaths and an enhanced bacterial sexuality that is characteristic of bacteria exposed to toxins came a reorganization of the superorganism we call the microcosm. The newly resistant bacteria multiplied, and quickly replaced those sensitive to oxygen on the Earth's surface as other bacteria survived beneath them in the anaerobic layers of mud and soil. From a holocaust that rivals the nuclear one we fear today came one of the most spectacular and important revolutions in the history of life."



Had cyanobacteria been able to think and communicate back then I am sure that the following conversations would have been taking place between some of them:



CB1 and CB2 "Do you think that world and nature would be better off if we were exterminated?" To which the anwer would of course be yes, because they, like us, can only picture the world as it is at present so any disruption of the natural order must be bad, although that is what results in future diversity.



CB3 and CB4 "This talk about the need to reduce O2 in the atmosphere is nothing but a socialist scam. We are so small, there is no way that we could affect the balance of the atmosphere." Oh silly cyanobacteria with your head in the sand, how wrong you were.



Quote:
would there be less suffering in the world without humans?



Nature is suffering. The struggle for survival is not smelling the roses and a walk on the beach at sunset.
Vegmedic is offline  
#20 Old 01-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Don't we have a symbiotic relationship with pets and scavenger animals?

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#21 Old 01-16-2010, 11:57 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Yes, I think most items on your first list constitute exploitation whereas the items on your second list don't, and I would argue that a) exploitation necessitates holding the victims as objects and commodities in a way that harm as such does not b) the status of non-humans as objects and commodities is the source of the problem, and indifference towards animals in e.g. environmentally harmful behavior is a consequence.



However, this argument doesn't really provide a reason why only avoiding the first list would be enough, morally; it merely provides a reason for drawing a relevant moral distinction. I think you can see the same distinction in Francione's work, in that the central target of his moral objection is the property status of animals, which he sees as the source of the ethical problem in our treatment of other species.



--



As to your original question, I don't think the question "can mankind be justified" makes much sense, as long as no one is in possession of a doomsday device. We're never choosing between whether mankind exists or not, so I don't see the point in asking the justification of something we have no control over; we can only choose whether to do the individual act of procreation (or an individual act of killing someone).



Those are great points. I can't really object to any of them.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#22 Old 01-16-2010, 12:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Don't we have a symbiotic relationship with pets and scavenger animals?

Well pets are not part of nature. I have no doubt that we can breed through artificial selection all sorts of animals that will then depend on us. As to the second question, I have to admit my ignorance and say that I know nothing about scavenger animals other than what I just found by Google searching. Can you tell me more about what you mean?
Bonn1997 is offline  
#23 Old 01-16-2010, 12:53 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Well pets are not part of nature. I have no doubt that we can breed through artificial selection all sorts of animals that will then depend on us. As to the second question, I have to admit my ignorance and say that I know nothing about scavenger animals other than what I just found by Google searching. Can you tell me more about what you mean?



Well, aren't we ALL part of nature though? Everything is part of the Earth, I'm not sure that a human city is anymore 'unnatural' than a termites nest or a beaver dam. And domestication started before we did any selective breeding of our own, we just formed a relationship with some animals and gave them food in exchange for companionship and it all went from there. At it's simplest level the relationship between a person and a cat seems pretty symbiotic to me, I have a cat on my lap right now who is free to come and go as he pleases but chooses to live with us for the food and safety and friendship, and in return I get to lavish attention on this purring ball of fluff.



As for scavengers, I was thinking of wild animals who have adapted to city life. I live in the city and we have our own ecosystem here, besides humans we have stray cats and dogs, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, coyotes, pigeons, crows, sea gulls, rats, mice, etc. They've all learned to feast like kings on the garbage people leave behind, I know because they are generally all fat and healthy looking except for the occasional sick pigeon I might see. They get to eat all the food humans waste and we benefit because they act like furry/feathery cleaning crews, this seems similar to the relationship between a shark and those sucker fish, or alligators and the birds who clean their teeth.

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#24 Old 01-16-2010, 01:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Well, aren't we ALL part of nature though? Everything is part of the Earth, I'm not sure that a human city is anymore 'unnatural' than a termites nest or a beaver dam. And domestication started before we did any selective breeding of our own, we just formed a relationship with some animals and gave them food in exchange for companionship and it all went from there. At it's simplest level the relationship between a person and a cat seems pretty symbiotic to me, I have a cat on my lap right now who is free to come and go as he pleases but chooses to live with us for the food and safety and friendship, and in return I get to lavish attention on this purring ball of fluff.



As for scavengers, I was thinking of wild animals who have adapted to city life. I live in the city and we have our own ecosystem here, besides humans we have stray cats and dogs, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, coyotes, pigeons, crows, sea gulls, rats, mice, etc. They've all learned to feast like kings on the garbage people leave behind, I know because they are generally all fat and healthy looking except for the occasional sick pigeon I might see. They get to eat all the food humans waste and we benefit because they act like furry/feathery cleaning crews, this seems similar to the relationship between a shark and those sucker fish, or alligators and the birds who clean their teeth.

OK, I see what you mean about scavengers. As to the other question, it depends on how you define nature. Most dictionaries define nature as "that which exists independent of human activity." I don't know whether that's a reasonable definition or an unjustifiable speciesist definition though. Nearly all humans are here as a result of their parents' sexual intercourse, which seems to me to be a "natural activity"--it's something other species do. So I don't really know what the word "nature" means. If we do grant that humans are part of nature, does that mean that every animal we artificially breed is also part of nature?
Bonn1997 is offline  
#25 Old 01-16-2010, 01:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

OK, I see what you mean about scavengers. As to the other question, it depends on how you define nature. Most dictionaries define nature as "that which exists independent of human activity." I don't know whether that's a reasonable definition or an unjustifiable speciesist definition though. Nearly all humans are here as a result of their parents' sexual intercourse, which seems to me to be a "natural activity"--it's something other species do. So I don't really know what the word "nature" means. If we do grant that humans are part of nature, does that mean that every animal we artificially breed is also part of nature?



Technically yes? I guess I can see why the term nature can be too broad if it just applies to everything. However, I also don't like the implication that humans exist outside of nature and aren't animals, it's a conundrum.

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#26 Old 01-16-2010, 02:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Technically yes? I guess I can see why the term nature can be too broad if it just applies to everything. However, I also don't like the implication that humans exist outside of nature and aren't animals, it's a conundrum.

I think any standard dictionary definition would count humans and our pets as animals even if not as part of nature.



I may be in the minority and this may just be a form of self-deception but I still think a human could have a positive impact on the world if he or she played a big role in the spread of veganism and/or other forms of environmental protection that actually resulted in the world being inhabitable for all animals for a longer time period.



Note that I think you are right about scavenger animals being part of nature by any dictionary definition and having genuinely symbiotic relations with humans (or at least a relation that benefited them). I'm recalling what I read a while ago in the Coppingers' book on the evolution of dogs. I'd assume humans could still have a net negative impact even if they have do benefit some animals that are part of nature though.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#27 Old 01-16-2010, 02:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
The expression "part of nature" is pretty close to the expression "natural", and as such, it is hopelessly subjective/normative.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#28 Old 01-16-2010, 03:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Yes, I think most items on your first list constitute exploitation whereas the items on your second list don't, and I would argue that a) exploitation necessitates holding the victims as objects and commodities in a way that harm as such does not b) the status of non-humans as objects and commodities is the source of the problem, and indifference towards animals in e.g. environmentally harmful behavior is a consequence.



However, this argument doesn't really provide a reason why only avoiding the first list would be enough, morally; it merely provides a reason for drawing a relevant moral distinction. I think you can see the same distinction in Francione's work, in that the central target of his moral objection is the property status of animals, which he sees as the source of the ethical problem in our treatment of other species.



--



As to your original question, I don't think the question "can mankind be justified" makes much sense, as long as no one is in possession of a doomsday device. We're never choosing between whether mankind exists or not, so I don't see the point in asking the justification of something we have no control over; we can only choose whether to do the individual act of procreation (or an individual act of killing someone).



I also wanted to add that I'm pretty new to reading about animal rights and welfare. Reading Francione is next on my list. I do have a full time job too though! I read Dunayer's book, Speciesism, and in my spare time am reading Singer's Animal Liberation.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#29 Old 01-16-2010, 03:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricGaia View Post

Just one. One whole species has to be symbiotic with another.

One thing I don't understand is, why would it make sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would be the only species that has no symbiotic relationship with another species? Why would evolution deviate so drastically for humans? Did our species at one time have a symbiotic relationship with other species and we simply no longer do?
Bonn1997 is offline  
#30 Old 01-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

One thing I don't understand is, why would it make sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would be the only species that has no symbiotic relationship with another species? Why would evolution deviate so drastically for humans? Did our species at one time have a symbiotic relationship with other species and we simply no longer do?



Don't we still? What about the scavengers and pets?

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 Off