| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GotACoolName
Trick Member
Joined: 28 May 2006
Location: Hales Corners, Wisconsin |
100.  Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
*Pulls up chair and grabs popcorn and insanely overpriced soda*
_________________
Brawl FC: 4725-7610-1200 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IHYD.DukAmok
Trick Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Corona, CA |
| 101. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | NO. THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME THING. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NO BAR DIVISION AND EVERY OTHER AMATUER OR MINOR LEAGUE SPORT EVER PLAYED. Get over it. |
playing no bar is not the "minor leages" of dancing games. its the "playing with wiffle balls" of dancing games.
look, fine, make a no bar groovestats. im not sure what the point is of a "seperate" ranking though, since playing without the bar, while different, is still the same game. in other words, mike q will still own everyone at it. if person A is better with the bar than person B with the bar, then its almost always true that A > B without the bar as well. you'll just have an almost identical groovestats ranking list, just with a little lower scores. sounds pointless to me.
_________________
| Sappy_!?! wrote: | | just to answer, if someone who stands next to you watching you play PSMO but you get a D on it, versus somebody who understands perfect attacking and stuff, will think you suck. A player is considered good in my opinion when a player of a higher level comments about you or see's you triple A a song. Or if somebody looks up to you. Hope it clarifies. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hurleyguyy
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
|
| 102. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
either way Lil Q will be number 1 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 103. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IHYD.DukAmok wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | NO. THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME THING. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NO BAR DIVISION AND EVERY OTHER AMATUER OR MINOR LEAGUE SPORT EVER PLAYED. Get over it. |
playing no bar is not the "minor leages" of dancing games. its the "playing with wiffle balls" of dancing games.
look, fine, make a no bar groovestats. im not sure what the point is of a "seperate" ranking though, since playing without the bar, while different, is still the same game. in other words, mike q will still own everyone at it. if person A is better with the bar than person B with the bar, then its almost always true that A > B without the bar as well. you'll just have an almost identical groovestats ranking list, just with a little lower scores. sounds pointless to me. |
1. Unfair comparison.
2. Mike q will need to provide proof that the excellent scores he achieved no bar, were indeed without the bar.
3.I personally don't think that many top tier players will stoop to the no bar level, but if they feel like involving themselves in the "wiffle ball" of ITG, then by all means do so.
4. I would find it ironic if alot of the people opposed to the idea started using the no bar rankings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KoFFreaK
Trick Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: s0caL |
| 104. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IHYD.DukAmok wrote: |
in other words, mike q will still own everyone at it. . |
Cool, I actually want to see that.
Are you so sure that he will own everyone at no-bar play? Have you seen everyone no-bar play? I personaly havent, and I doubt you have either.
Im not doubting mike q's no bar ability, but maybe we could see over time people giving him competition to beat his scores.
I think mike would like a little competition  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boochypa
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: VA Tech |
| 105. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | I believe that there is enough demand and popularity to make a no bar section of groovestats feasable. |
Go make one then.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | That's like saying "it's not worth it to drive to the store so I can feed myself". Of course it would be worth it. The benefits FAR outway the cost. |
If the benefits really outweighed the cost by SO MUCH, then why hasn't it been made yet? Why aren't you making it right now? You and AA Bob and KoFFreaK can go get this done right now.
All everyone else is arguing is that since no-bar isn't a competetive way to play, competetive players won't care, and there probably aren't enough no-bar players to make this worth the effort. If you think it's worth the effort, then go make it yourself. No one's stopping you.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 106. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lol, I won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 107. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | No, it doesn't. Someone says "I don't agree with you." At that point it is their CHOICE whether or not they say WHY they don't agree with you. If they don't add anything to that, it does NOT mean that they didn't say something relevant to the discussion. |
True. It does mean, however, that they have added no argumentative content to the discussion.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | No, it's neither. He didn't back down from his standpoint, so from YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of Socrates' teachings, he is still standing up for his point of view, albeit passively. |
First of all, it isn't my interperation (although I agree with it). If you must credit it to anyone, Aristotle would be the name you would say.
Second of all, this is the definition in the SEP of Intellectual Cowardice:
"Intellectual Cowardice (Socratic Philosophy): Being faced with a refutation of your viewpoint and neither conceding nor defending your view with logical content."
If KoFFreak cannot defend his view, and he refuses to give it up, he is guilty of intellectual cowardice. You might think of intellectual cowardice as "internal hypocrisy."
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | If he were exhibiting cowardice, he would have instantly conceded and admitted that his claim had no merit. |
That might be exhibiting personal cowardice (although I don't think it is). It has absolutely nothing to do with Intellectual Cowardice.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And there are also reasons to do it, as AA Bob presented. |
Unless the distinction is non-arbitrary, I see no such reasons.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | In a subjective conversation!? What the hell IS this, anyway? |
Subjectivity does not imply Impermiability.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I think I understand, now. You're saying that it is acceptable and possibly even commendable to be contradictory simply for the sake of being contradictory, and not because it has any real relevance. I'm glad we cleared that up. |
I've never said this, nor do I believe it. I think it is admirable to stand up for what you believe in with reasoned objection, as I am doing on this thread.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | He said that it wouldn't effect bar players' standings, and that it would be fun for non-bar players to see how they compare to other non-bar players, and he said that it would help ease the tension between the two factions... blah, blah, blah, et cetera, et cetera... didn't we just go OVER this? |
Where in this is there an argument that the distinction is non-arbitrary? If the distinction is non-arbitrary, then people ought to care. If the distinction is arbitrary, then it might be nice, but there is no particular reason to compel someone to do it. If he wants to do it on his own, he is more than welcome.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | No, I don't, because it's not a principle. It's a preference. If someone prefers to use the bar because it's a tougher way to play, it adds to their experience - just like being able to chew and swallow their own food adds to the experience of eating, even though it's not the most effecient method - and is therefore to be accepted and commended, by this very same logic. |
Preferecenes can either be principled or aribtrary. If the preference is principled, people ought to care. If the preference is arbitrary, people might or might not care, and there is no particular reason to do it (or not to do it).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I will not explain why it's different than playing wearing sandals unless you explain why it's different than chewing and swallowing your own food. |
I'm happy to give you a principled reason for eating your own food. I'd say look at the very first chapter of any biography of Brillat-Savarin.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And the reason is that both explanations are the same explanation. |
Apparently, the explanation of why using the bar is non-arbitrary is going to involve a discussion of high cuisine in Imperial France.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wraith985
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Dec 2002
Location: Saratoga, CA |
| 108. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, all of you people who advocate a no-bar Groovestats, you apparently don't understand what the argument is.
There is nothing inherently *wrong* with a no-bar GrooveStats in the abstract. There is also no *point* to having one, because playing without the bar is an arbitrary limitation that you choose to place on yourself. A no-bar Groovestats would be akin to making a 5x Mini Reverse Hallway Echo Dizzy Drift One-Foot-Only No-Shoes Girlfriend-Present No-Double-Stepping ranking; and when you take it to that extreme, it's pretty obvious just how ridiculous the idea is. I could very well play ITG under only exactly those conditions, but that doesn't entitle me to special treatment because I made a certain set of choices before I even set foot on the pad.
If you choose to place an arbitrary restriction on your ability to score well at ITG2 in a competitive arena, then be my guest. Just don't doggy and moan when other people, who have no such mental block, get better scores than you do. Seems like some of you need to read Sirlin.net and take to heart its message... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 109. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Then what's so wrong with using no bar scores to find out who the best no bar players are? |
Nothing. You can do whatever you want. However, unless there is a valid principled reason for the distinction, nobody needs to care what you are doing.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | The principality has already been argued. |
Great, let's see it:
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Is the difference between college football and pro football arbitrary because they're playing the same sport? No it isn't. |
I agree with you. I think the principle here is "restriction by age" and I think there is a lot of principle behind that restriction. I think in some sports (sports where physical development plays a large role) people ought to care about restriction by age. What's the principle for playing no-bar?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | I noticed that you didn't address my point of DDR being a sport and every other sport in the world having multiple divisions. |
Because what matters is whether the divisions are arbitrary or not. What's the principle for playing no-bar?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | The purpose of keeping track of no bar scores is the same as keeping track of the standings of college football. |
What's the principle for playing no-bar? Sorry, but I've just read your paragraph, and I see no given principled reason.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | There is a clear and practical principle. |
What is it?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Add a new division to an already existing score tracking method for the purpose of finding out who the best no bar players are. |
Why should anyone care?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | This is on par to every single other sport known to man. |
Non-Arbitrary divisions are on-par with every other sport known to man. There is a youth chess division. There is not a blonde chessplayers division. What's the principle for the distinction?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You could never show that because the distinction is none of those things. |
Great, if it isn't arbitrary, it has a princpled reason. What's the principle for the distinction?
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You may as well call the distinction between the olympics and the "special" olympics arbitrary. |
I think there is a clear principle: physical handicaps. I think people ought to care about physical handicaps where it applies. I support physical handicapped divisions for ITG.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Not every single one. How about addressing the fact that entering a "sandal" division is not the same thing as a no bar division. By saying..."I pwn is sandals, I want a sandal division". |
Someone argued that the principle was that nobody wanted a sandals division (but some people did want a no-bar division). I refuted this argument by counter-example to a universal by claiming that I want a sandal division.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You may be the most educated erm... "philosopher" in this thread, but your reasons for denying a no bar division are flawed and your arguments are flawed as well. |
My arguments are flawed? Are they invalid or unsound? Please enlighten me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 110. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psychopat wrote: | I liken it to Olympic swimming. There's multiple divisions, such as breast stroke, butterfly, back stroke, front crawl, freestyle and so forth. The whole point of those divisions is not to see who the fatest overall swimmer is, it's to determine who's the best at that particular discipline.
These distinctions are no less arbitrary than bar/no bar categories. |
The last sentence I disagree with. I think professional swimmers will tell you there is a strong principled division between (for instance) breast-stroke and freestyle. If there weren't, I wouldn't consider the divisions valid.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | The choice is not arbitrary, it's voluntary. |
A choice can be arbitrary and voluntary. For instance, I arbitrarily just chose to a flip a coin. It was a voluntary choice, but it was still arbitrary. Establishing that the choice is voluntary does not establish that it isn't arbitrary.
| psychopat wrote: | | For fucks sake, is college football impractical? NO. Is a no bar division for ITG impractical? NO. THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME THING. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NO BAR DIVISION AND EVERY OTHER AMATUER OR MINOR LEAGUE SPORT EVER PLAYED. Get over it. |
There is a principled distinction between college football and professional football. I gave it about (youth is the distinction).
| Evil_pied wrote: | | 2. Mike q will need to provide proof that the excellent scores he achieved no bar, were indeed without the bar. |
All of Mike's scores (with or without the bar) are verified, either by witness, by video or by comparison.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | Cool, I actually want to see that. |
http://www.groovestats.com/index.php?page=profile&id=3106
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | Are you so sure that he will own everyone at no-bar play? |
He was top-ten in the world on regular GS with his no-bar account.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | I think mike would like a little competition |
Ryan and I both know Mike pretty well. Mike would love competition at ITG, he couldn't care less about no-bar play.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psychopat
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario |
| 111. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | The last sentence I disagree with. I think professional swimmers will tell you there is a strong principled division between (for instance) breast-stroke and freestyle. If there weren't, I wouldn't consider the divisions valid. |
Please enlighten us, then, as to how you view this principled division as something different than the bar/nobar division in ITG and why my last sentence was invalid. The parallel to ITG in the analogy is obvious. You're both accomplishing the same goal (be it swimming X distance or stomping the exact same arrows in the exact same pattern), albeit using different methods in both scenarios. Different muscle groups come into play and both styles place differing emphasis on different skills such as balance, endurance, speed, timing or reaction time (since generally bar = faster mod), in the ITG part of the example. On the swimmer's perspective, a butterfly special would obviously place way more importance on the upper body strength than his breast-stroking counterpart.
By the logic you guys are using on the whole no-bar issue, every single swimmer should be doing freestyle because it's the fastest. Let's cancel all the swimming events at the Olympics except for that one.
Also, not that I mind but you're misquoting in the rest of the post. (As a side note, I agree that whoever brought up the special olympics didn't think that analogy through; it doesn't really apply.)
Whoever brought up Mike Q was obviously at a loss. If he doesn't care, then he wouldn't use it if it was available. It's that simple. Why does his opinion even matter on the subject if he's not interested whatsoever, bearing in mind that having it available would not harm or hinder him in any way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 112. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psychopat wrote: | | Please enlighten us, then, as to how you view this principled division as something different than the bar/nobar division in ITG |
Sure. A principled division is a division which is normative. An arbitrary division is not.
| psychopat wrote: | | The parallel to ITG in the analogy is obvious. You're both accomplishing the same goal (be it swimming X distance or stomping the exact same arrows in the exact same pattern), albeit using different methods in both scenarios. Different muscle groups come into play and both styles place differing emphasis on different skills such as balance, endurance, speed, timing or reaction time (since generally bar = faster mod), in the ITG part of the example. On the swimmer's perspective, a butterfly special would obviously place way more importance on the upper body strength than his breast-stroking counterpart. |
I wouldn't consider that a principled distinction. I was under the impression, although I am not a swimmer, that the principle behind the division between freestyle and breaststroke was due to the fact that breaststrokes are possible where freestyle is not (for instance, rapids). if there is no principled division, I would say only focus on the freestyle.
| psychopat wrote: | | By the logic you guys are using on the whole no-bar issue, every single swimmer should be doing freestyle because it's the fastest. |
First of all, not if the distinction is principled. Second of all, even it were arbitrary, all that means is that freestyle is the only division people ought to care about. People can swim, or play ITG, however they want, regardless of the normative content of their approach
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 113. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | The principality has already been argued. |
Great, let's see it |
If you need direction to finding my earlier statements, I could draw you a map.
Also, if you don't consider the different divisions in swimming to be principled, then you aren't going to find many principled divisions in anything. Why don't you give an example of a principled division in your opinion, because if you aren't willing to accept an example like the swimming one, then I'd imagine there aren't many divisions that you wouldn't find arbitrary.
The reason that there are multiple divisions in swimming is not because one would be useful where another is not. It's because there are multiple different styles of swimming that require different strengths. ITG has multiple styles of play that require different strengths. So how is a seperate division not warranted?
Anyways, you seem to have argued that the divisions of swimming are not principled, so then why does a division need to be principled in order to exist? If all of these examples we have given you aren't principled, then it doesn't seem like being principled would be a requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 114. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | If you need direction to finding my earlier statements, I could draw you a map. |
I responded to what I take to be your principle in the sentence after that post.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Also, if you don't consider the different divisions in swimming to be principled |
I didn't say that.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | then you aren't going to find many principled divisions in anything. Why don't you give an example of a principled division in your opinion, because if you aren't willing to accept an example like the swimming one, then I'd imagine there aren't many divisions that you wouldn't find arbitrary. |
I've already given many. In cuisine, in the special olympics and in college football I gave the principle I take to be relevant and approved of it.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | The reason that there are multiple divisions in swimming is not because one would be useful where another is not. It's because there are multiple different styles of swimming that require different strengths. |
If that's really the reason, then I don't think the division is something people need to care about.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | ITG has multiple styles of play that require different strengths. |
Actually, there is almost no difference in the strengths required between playing with and without the bar. Hence why the best players in the world, Mike and Damien, are also the best players in the world without the bar. The only real difference not using the bar makes is that it ensures that some players, like disabled players and like people who aren't in perfect fitness, can't play at all. I recall when an extensive list was made of the best DDR players in the world and an extensive list was made of the best no-bar players. The only difference was that some players (like Robert Lund) who were highly rated on the former (they used the bar to help them conquer a physical disability, as I myself do) couldn't even compete on the former. You can show this pretty easily with ITGmetrics.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | So how is a seperate division not warranted? |
I'm not claiming it isn't warranted, I'm claiming there exists no normative reason to care about it.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Anyways, you seem to have argued that the divisions of swimming are not principled |
I don't understand the reasons behind the divisions and make no claim about them.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | so then why does a division need to be principled in order to exist? |
It doesn't. It does need to principled for their to be normative content of the division.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emptyeye
Trick Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Location: Waterbury, CT |
| 115. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something interesting about the Freestyle Swimming event:
According to Wikipedia, whose text is repeated elsewhere on the Internet, Freestyle, contrary to popular belief, is NOT merely the "stroke" everyone sees in swimming competitions in that event. Indeed, Freestyle means (I'm paraphrasing) "swim however you want, except if it's part of a medley, in which case swim however you want as long as it's not the backstroke/breaststroke/butterfly". The stroke you see everyone do in "Freestyle" is merely the standard because it's generally regarded as the fastest.
I remember someone else somewhere (Don't remember if it was here or not) making the case that one could compare choosing (Or not choosing) to use bar in a competitive ITG setting and choosing to use anything besides the "standard" stroke (The front crawl, according to the linked article) in a Freestyle swimming competition.
Take that as you will.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 116. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You admitted that a new division is warranted, thank you for agreeing with me. I win again.
| novalis in regards to the different divisions in swimming wrote: | | I wouldn't consider that a principled distinction. |
Haha, you did say that.
| novalis wrote: | | If that's really the reason, then I don't think the division is something people need to care about. |
And yet people do care! Isn't that something!?
| novalis wrote: | | Actually, there is almost no difference in the strengths required between playing with and without the bar. |
You could say the same about any other sport with multiple divisions. I.E. Swimming, martial arts, etc...
| novalis wrote: | | I'm not claiming it isn't warranted, I'm claiming there exists no normative reason to care about it. |
There doesn't need to be a reason to care about it. Many other sports have proven this.
Last edited by Evil_pied on Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 117. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You admitted that a new division is warranted, thank you for agreeing with me. |
No, I didn't. Please read carefully. I said it's not that a division is NOT warranted. That's not the same. I can explain that to you, in logic, slower if you like.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Haha, you did say that. |
Again, please read carefully. I said IF, emphasis on IF, that was the reason, then the division would not be principled. If it were not the reason, then it might be. I also said I don't know enough to say about swimming. Again, I can explain this distinction slower in logic if you like.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | And yet people do care! Isn't that something!? |
People are free to care about whatever they want. I'm interested in the normative force of their interest.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You could say the same about any other sport with multiple divisions. I.E. Swimming, martial arts, etc... |
It's certainly not true in martial arts, there are huge differences between what is required in Boxing, in Vale Tudo, in Kyokushin Karate Kumite and in TKD competitions. The worlds greatest boxer would be slaughtered in a Vale Tudo competition, for instance.
In any event, it's an interesting point (that no-bar limits, rather than expands, the sport) but it isn't the turning point of the argument. Focus on the argument.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | There doesn't need to be a reason to care about it. |
Of course not, you're welcome to care about whatever you like. Your caring just has no normative content.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 118. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| novalis wrote: | | I'm not claiming it isn't warranted, |
ty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marq(uistadorous)
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Location: Arvada, CO |
| 119. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
watch this.
THIS THREAD IS GAY.
Now I just wait for someone to get mad at me! This is alot of fun!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
