  |
|
|
View previous topic
::
View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ekalski
Joined:
02 Jan 2004
Posts:
329
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:47 am
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Reading this thread has really opened my eyes. Makes me wonder how many emails from whom I've missed.
I'm surprised something this major hasn't been reported about in the regular media - TV, newspapers, etc. Just about everybody uses email now. You'd think this would be a major news story by the mainstream media.
Ed
_________________
My Affiliate Info - and More! A complete package for the affiliate marketer.
http://www.everyday-wisdom.com/affiliate-software-package.html |
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
Ken Evoy
Guest
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:48 am
Post subject: Microsoft and SiteSell
|
|
|
Regarding Blazester's post...
I, too, would find it hard to believe that Microsoft is deliberately blocking our Site Build It transactional e-mails, too. But I leave the possibility open until they answer these very, very reasonable questions....
1) Why waste our time (both MS and SiteSell's)? If you're going to spend our time investigating, you better be ready to permit the innocent e-mail through if you find out that the situation is indeed innocent (and in the world of e-commerce e-mail, it does NOT get more innocent than transactional e-mail). Otherwise, this was a "judicial process" that says... if we find you guilty, we'll fry you. And if you're innocent, we still won't let your mail through.
2) Why no bounce-back? That's rude at best, nasty at worst. Our bounce technology had every reason to believe that our mail was getting through.
3) If customer satisfaction is truly their #1 goal as they said in their communications, why not permit our post-order Site Build It! e-mails through? Their customers want those e-mails -- they paid for them. After spending hours working on this, it would take them only seconds more to add us to their internal whitelist.
4) And again, if customer satisfaction is #1, why can't THEIR CUSTOMERS use the Hotmail safe list tools to let us through?
5) They should not be referring those who are blocked by their filters to a company that is run by ex-senior Microsoft people. No matter what, it looks bad. And perception is reality, as far as I'm concerned. This may be a LEGAL arms length relationship, but it is not a moral one -- when you lock the gate and then tell me that I have to PAY YOUR FRIENDS FOR THE KEY, something is wrong. Does anyone reading this think this is proper business behavior?
Bottom line.. tell me, Hotmail, without wasting a second of my time or yours, that we're probably just another filtered false-positive, and you don't have time to chase all these down and refer me to a true arms-length bonder. So be it. But that is NOT what happened.
Do I really think that Microsoft is knocking out our e-mail because SiteSell has soared past bCentral in the Alexa rankings? (That graph that Allan is running on his home page http://associateprograms.com *IS* a good relative indicator of how small business people are voting -- for product quality and small business success, not the big MS name -- scroll to the bottom of the associateprograms.com home page to see the graph Allan is running.)
Well, I don't rule ANYTHING out -- can anyone else come up with logical answers to the above questions? This is certainly far from "just another filtered false-positive."
All the best,
Ken Evoy
President SiteSell.com
P.S. Sooner or later, someone from Microsoft will come by this forum to read this thread -- when they do, consider this my request (again) to permit our transactional e-mail to reach our mutual customers. Or provide honest answers to the above five questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:17 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hello again.
First off, let me just state that I think in the case of Sitesell, MS certainly have some questions to answer, based on the evidence here. I'm not defending them in the slightest if they are refusing to let customers whitelist Sitesell.
If that's true, it does smell of foul play. Especially when the lack of bounce notifications is factored in.
However, most of my comments were on the subject of spam filters in general, not this case in particular...
| AllanGardyne wrote: | | Quote: | | I can't help but wonder whether a small charge for email delivery might be a good thing. |
I'd prefer to see the problem tackled via more determined action by governments to track down spammers and virus writers and lock them up. |
So would I.
Much of the problem with spammers, though, seems to be that it is being driven to places where laws are more lax - making international enforcement difficult at best.
Maybe prevention (by pricing out the spammers) would be more effective than any partial cure, however well intentioned.
| Quote: | | I've seen one suggestion that each email should cost 1 cent to send. At that rate, it would cost me more than $200 (plus what I already pay to Dundee.net) to distribute each edition of my newsletter. |
I've never seen any numbers, but 1 cent seems a bit high to me. Surely, with the very low sales conversions from spam and the very high volumes, a much lower figure would be a huge deterrant to the people causing the biggest problems.
If the figure was 0.1c (say) would this be a good deal to you then? (I bet it would deter many mass spammers.)
| Quote: | | I hope we don't buckle under and allow Microsoft to use our fear of the spam problem as a way to force us into paying email fees to its friends. |
But surely we already are paying for the spam problem...
Similar to taxation, our money is being used by ISPs and others to cross subsidise the resources needed to handle the spam being passed through. At the moment, all that is happening is that the wrong people are paying.
Also, Sitesell - if they weren't inundated, they could make SBI cheaper or offer more commission to affiliates, if they so chose.
| Quote: | | Forcing everyone to be more efficient and cost-effective? More businesslike? What a scary thought. What about the thousands of newsletter publishers who don't wish to be more businesslike? |
Should everyone be entitled to "free" publishing and advertising? I don't see empowering everyone as a good thing, but a bad.
As Ken says, "not just a website but a real business" (or words to that effect). For me, "real business" includes professionalism, commitment and investment - even if you are one person working from home.
| Quote: | | What about the individuals who want to continue having the freedom to say what feel like without worrying about trying to generate dollars from each mail-out? |
They should expect to have to pay for the privilege - just as they would with any other medium. Propaganda at a price.
| Quote: | | Do we really want to restrict their ability to operate freely? After all, if we don't like what they say, we can simply unsubscribe. |
I can't think of many newsletters I still subscribe to that I wouldn't be prepared to pay $5 per year to receive an issue a week (based on the 0.1c again).
| Quote: | | I'd prefer to see the world become LESS businesslike. |
Generally, perhaps. The bit I'm trying to run a business in, I think not. Low barriers to entry leads to higher competition leads to lower (or harder earned) profits in most industries.
The internet might be a medium rather than an industry, but doesn't the same apply? I think history is already showing us that. You could even argue that web hosting has become too affordable.
Giving everyone access is one thing - trying to turn everyone into some sort of "entrepreneur without investment or commitment" is quite another.
| Quote: | | That lack of barriers to entry, that freedom, is one of the most beautiful things in the world. It places a poor person in Bulgaria or Malaysia or India or New Zealand on an equal footing with the largest corporations of the world. |
I totally disagree. Even the Kiwis. 
| Quote: | | It means we're all limited only by our imaginations and our determination to succeed. |
I think time and money are about as important when it comes to limitations.
| Quote: | | It was precisely that lack of barriers to entry which made it possible to me to build a profitable Internet business, starting with nothing when I was broke. |
Yes, and I'd like to have everything for free myself, too. But the way things are heading, I'd rather everyone else paid their way, so I suppose I'll have to, as well.
Let's put it this way... with the knowledge they have now, who wouldn't rather turn the clock back 5 years (say) and enjoy the much less competitive conditions?
Perhaps by creating a few barriers to entry (instead of constantly chipping away at them), we can have the best of both worlds.
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Chamberlain
Joined:
01 Aug 2003
Posts:
1184
Location:
London, England
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:26 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Charlie,
| Quote: | Let's put it this way... with the knowledge they have now, who wouldn't rather turn the clock back 5 years (say) and enjoy the much less competitive conditions?
Perhaps by creating a few barriers to entry (instead of constantly chipping away at them), we can have the best of both worlds. |
Being an Internet virgin (well, near virgin), I don't know about 5 years ago but I imagine that it was 'less competitive', but I guess that there were far fewer folks online, making any online market smaller. Would you really want to go back to that Charlie?
Barriers, all sorts of barriers, appear naturally, I find it hard to accept that we would benefit by deliberately placing more hurdles in the way of those that want to have a pop at online business.
Not that I disagree with you that sooner or later we will pay for email, it's an opportunity for the Big Boys to make extra dosh. And I might also agree that this may raise the quality of ezines.
More Barriers? No thanks Charlie. There are enough barriers in most areas of life that are intended to keep one in ones place.
All the best,
Larry Chamberlain.
_________________
Why Do Most Affiliates Make Less Than $500 Per Month?
Is SBI! eLearning Right For You? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:41 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Blazester wrote: | | I just received an E-Mail from Google saying that some of their e-mails were blocked by hotmail. |
Perhaps Ken can get some tips from Google on how to encourage Microsoft to behave decently.
| Quote: | | So I do not believe it is any sort of conspiracy against Site Sell. |
Microsoft was willing to spend a whole lot of time discussing this problem with SiteSell and then wasn't willing to spend a few seconds to "safelist" the company. That's very suspicious.
I love it!
Allan Gardyne
Web sites that work. See the overwhelming proof...
http://www.AssociatePrograms.com/results |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:18 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Larry Chamberlain wrote: | | I don't know about 5 years ago but I imagine that it was 'less competitive', but I guess that there were far fewer folks online, making any online market smaller. Would you really want to go back to that Charlie? |
I can think of one market where I would definitely love to turn the clock back. Hindsight is certainly a wonderful thing.
| Quote: | | Barriers, all sorts of barriers, appear naturally, I find it hard to accept that we would benefit by deliberately placing more hurdles in the way of those that want to have a pop at online business. |
I don't think the financial hurdles would have to be big at all. Quite the contrary. In the case of email, I suspect a tiny fee would have a huge impact on the main problem causers, as I mentioned.
But what about SE listings. Let's face it, the majority of websites are junk. Surely this is because too many people now know how to create a web site cheaply. This is not a good thing.
"Fast buck" and "black economy" spring to mind. At least offline, you have to pay for stamps.
[You took the time and paid to use SBI - a good method. Most people neither take the time to learn nor pay for a decent solution.]
| Quote: | | Not that I disagree with you that sooner or later we will pay for email, it's an opportunity for the Big Boys to make extra dosh. |
I was envisaging a way of centrally controlling this via tracking emails sent and received - not a way of lining the pockets of any "monopoly companies".
| Quote: | | More Barriers? No thanks Charlie. There are enough barriers in most areas of life that are intended to keep one in ones place. |
Just for the record, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and neither am I heir to half of Cornwall or Scotland by marriage.
Remember me if you win the lottery next week. I could still do with some more loot. 
| AllanGardyne wrote: | | Perhaps Ken can get some tips from Google on how to encourage Microsoft to behave decently. |
Do you think MS are likely to get banned by Google? No, me neither.
| Quote: | | Microsoft was willing to spend a whole lot of time discussing this problem with SiteSell and then wasn't willing to spend a few seconds to "safelist" the company. That's very suspicious. |
Yes it is, but what's the point of this thread, drawing attention to possible unfair treatment of Sitesell, or bashing Microsoft for the fun of it?
At the end of the day, Microsoft has probably been more responsible than anyone for popularising the internet (and empowering all those impoverished Kiwis), even if they do make the most of their position.
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Chamberlain
Joined:
01 Aug 2003
Posts:
1184
Location:
London, England
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:37 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hi Charlie,
| Quote: | | Just for the record, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, and neither am I heir to half of Cornwall or Scotland by marriage. |
Hah! I happen to know that you have cornered the market for flat 'ats and tripe.
| Quote: | | But what about SE listings. Let's face it, the majority of websites are junk. Surely this is because too many people now know how to create a web site cheaply. This is not a good thing. |
You have a point, as always, but surely, on the whole web sites are getting better? As I understand it the 'net used to be full of banner farms. And lets hope that the engines get better at filtering out junk sites.
The way I look at it, easy accessibility can only be a good thing, allowing the 'net to enlarge.
All the best,
Larry Chamberlain.
_________________
Why Do Most Affiliates Make Less Than $500 Per Month?
Is SBI! eLearning Right For You? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Evoy
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:16 pm
Post subject: Charlie, here's the real point...
|
|
|
Charlie, regarding your question...
-----------------------------------------------
"What's the point of this thread, drawing attention to possible unfair treatment of Sitesell, or bashing Microsoft for the fun of it?"
-----------------------------------------------
Charlie, maybe you will understand only when it happens to you -- because the point of this thread is to prevent it from happening to you, and all the other small business people out there who can't fight back against MS. MS does not really seem to care if you can send e-mail to your CUSTOMERS and they don't seem to feel they owe it to their customers to deliver it. Instead they're forcing you to a company run by ex-MS people to "buy a key" to the gate they've locked.
In the meantime, it is NOT about "drawing attention" to SiteSell as I've made clear, and I've also stated we don't want to fight MS -- that would be suicidal.
We've merely stated the facts, EXACTLY as they occurred.
So the two possible conclusions that you offer (drawing attention to possible unfair treatment of Sitesell, and bashing Microsoft) are a disappointing take on this thread.
However, if you can, and especially if you do conclude that MS's treatment of SiteSell HAS been fair, or if you do conclude that the point here is to bash Microsoft, then please do try to answer the five questions that I pose above. I'd love to see your answers.
Just to repeat the answer your question... the point of this thread is to keep it from happening to others. The way to do that is to spread the word and cause MS to institute fair policies.
I can't come up with reasonable answers to my five questions above, Charlie. Can you?
All the best,
Ken Evoy
President, SiteSell.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Myers
Guest
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:46 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Charlie wrote: | | I can't help but wonder whether a small charge for email delivery might be a good thing. Considering how low the CRs (and how "mass" the mailings) for spammers, might it not be the best way to go? A tiny charge per email would seriously hit mass senders who sell very little indeed. |
See the blog Ken and Allen referenced for my take on that as well. Short form: It will not work. It would do as much damage to general use of email as spam has. Possibly more.
http://www.talkbiz.net/ramblings/weblog.php
| Quote: | | Besides, when Paul sent all those Yahoo-ers packing, I wonder how much less (or is it more?) responsive his list became? |
It didn't affect total response. Not one bit. The people who were even remotely likely to buy resubscribed. The rest didn't care, and rightly shouldn't have.
Response RATES went up slightly, because the total number of recipients was smaller, but that's an artificial increase, with no real meaning.
This all has nothing to do with the original issue, though:
As Ken points out, Microsoft is not the focus. They're simply the example in this case. However - If enough pressure can be put on them to correct the situation, others will be less likely to let such things slide.
If nothing is done, others will assume that people just don't care.
Several people have told me that they think most people won't care until it happens to them. That's probably true. Abd it's stoooopid.
If you don't care enough to do something about it, it WILL happen to you. At which point, it's too late, and you deserve what you get.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the reality of the situation. There've been enough examples and enough warnings that I don't have any sympathy for anyone who keeps their mouth shut about abuses and then cries when the same abuses happen to them.
Posting to a board, by the way, isn't "doing something about it."
Contact Hotmail or MSN and let them know your feelings on it, and what you intend to do about it. Even if you take action, if MS doesn't know why, they'll assume it's part of a general trend with other causes, and they won't fix the problem.
Look into other alternatives to MS products. OpenOffice instead of MS Office.
Pegasus or Eudora instead of Outlook.
AIM or Yahoo Messenger instead of MS' IM product.
Opera instead of Explorer.
Any ISP but MSN.
Then tell them what you did and why.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:02 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
How does that saying go, "you get what you pay for." If people insist on using free email accounts for vital business transactions, they may as well be prepared to get the hose sooner or later. You may not like the censorship that is possibly going on, but, it is within Microsoft's rights to do so. Best to worry about things you can control and not those you can't.
Ironically, I find it humerous that the owner of this forum is complaining about censorship, especially since it goes on at this forum regularly. Again, I have no problem with it on principle; it's your forum and you are free to do as you wish. It is a bit hypocritical, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:50 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | Ironically, I find it humerous that the owner of this forum is complaining about censorship, especially since it goes on at this forum regularly. Again, I have no problem with it on principle; it's your forum and you are free to do as you wish. It is a bit hypocritical, though. |
Yes, we regularly "censor" posts by people who blatantly try to promote MLM stuff and are too careless to post their messages in the place specially provided for them. We've also banned an anonymous person for a whole range of reasons.
But let's not get sidetracked.
What happens on one privately owned forum is vastly different from what's happening in a case which has the potential to involve every user of email everywhere.
Are we going to end up in a world where Microsoft and perhaps Yahoo and AOL control the world's email and act as gatekeepers, allowing our emails to pass only if we all pay a fee?
That's the real issue.
That's not about censorship. That's about control.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it!
Last edited by AllanGardyne on Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Charlie, here's the real point...
|
|
|
Hello again.
[It's been a while since I've had this many "big guns" pointed at me, but I think it's safe to come out of the bunker now...
Incidentally, I'm on your side...
A bit of "friendly fire" is to be expected from time to time, but I thought I'd gone out of my way to identify my position on this occasion.]
| Quote: | -----------------------------------------------
"What's the point of this thread, drawing attention to possible unfair treatment of Sitesell, or bashing Microsoft for the fun of it?"
----------------------------------------------- |
| Quote: | | So the two possible conclusions that you offer (drawing attention to possible unfair treatment of Sitesell, and bashing Microsoft) are a disappointing take on this thread. |
I was commenting on the way the thread seemed to be heading immediately prior to my last post, not how or why the thread was started.
| Quote: | | I can't come up with reasonable answers to my five questions above, Charlie. Can you? |
No I can't. I'm with you on the sniff test...
I thought I said that last time. I certainly meant to.
| Paul Myers wrote: | | See the blog Ken and Allen referenced for my take on that as well. Short form: It will not work. It would do as much damage to general use of email as spam has. Possibly more. |
I've been trying to access that blog all weekend - without success...
talkbiz.com works fine, but nothing on .net is working for me - even now - not the weblog itself or any redirects to it.
Sorry for the "blinkers" - I want the whole story, too. I just can't get through at the moment.
| Quote: | | It didn't affect total response. Not one bit. The people who were even remotely likely to buy resubscribed. The rest didn't care, and rightly shouldn't have. |
Bearing this in mind, is refusing to cooperate with Yahoo or Hotmail users such a big deal commercially for Sitesell or any of us, or more an issue of defending "the rights" of people who continue to use these addresses, even when we point out the problems to them?
| Quote: | | If you don't care enough to do something about it, it WILL happen to you. At which point, it's too late, and you deserve what you get. |
I don't know if that's meant for me personally, or the world in general, but I tend to blame the users as much as the providers. You wrote off the problem group, and it sounds like you have no regrets. Is it a completely different issue for ezine subscribers as opposed to customers?
| Quote: | | I don't have any sympathy for anyone who keeps their mouth shut about abuses and then cries when the same abuses happen to them. |
Neither do I.
| Guest wrote: | | If people insist on using free email accounts for vital business transactions, they may as well be prepared to get the hose sooner or later. You may not like the censorship that is possibly going on, but, it is within Microsoft's rights to do so. |
I see it in a similar way...
If more publishers took Paul's approach and refused to let people with popular (but problematic) email accounts play, there wouldn't be a problem with transactional or any other important messages.
| Allan Gardyne wrote: | | Are we going to end up in a world where Microsoft and perhaps Yahoo and AOL control the world's email and act as gatekeepers, allowing our emails to pass only if we all pay a fee? |
Is it really that bad? Or are we flattering certain big players regarding their power?
At the risk of showing my optimistic colours, I'd like to think there's hope for the world yet.
All the best,
Charlie.
P.S. | Larry Chamberlain wrote: | | Hah! I happen to know that you have cornered the market for flat 'ats and tripe. |
Where I cum from, wi divven't drop wor aitches, mun.
And when it comes to "tripe", my market share is nothing to write home about. 
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllanGardyne
Site Admin
Joined:
02 Jul 2003
Posts:
6302
Location:
by the beach, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Charlie, here's the real point...
|
|
|
| Allan Gardyne wrote: | | Are we going to end up in a world where Microsoft and perhaps Yahoo and AOL control the world's email and act as gatekeepers, allowing our emails to pass only if we all pay a fee? |
| Charlie wrote: | | Is it really that bad? Or are we flattering certain big players regarding their power? |
One way to look at this is as a test case for everyone who uses email.
Throughout the history of the world, nations have allowed tyrants to take one small, apparently insignificant step, and then another and another...
Taken individually, each little abuse of power hasn't seemed worth making a fuss about, until eventually people wake up to the mess they're in and wonder: "How on earth did we allow that to happen?"
Either Microsoft is asleep - or we are.
_________________
Allan Gardyne
AssociatePrograms.com - You're here. Explore it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Charlie, here's the real point...
|
|
|
| AllanGardyne wrote: | | One way to look at this is as a test case for everyone who uses email. |
I look at addresses such as Hotmail and Yahoo as "fun" addresses. It's only when trying to contact the "home business hopefuls" that the problem arises.
Surely if we weren't trying to contact them, we wouldn't care whether their email worked or not. I know I wouldn't.
For those people we are trying to contact, isn't pointing out the problems the best way. Then the big players we are talking about can be left to filter to their hearts' content.
If Fred doen't get his Friday afternoon "meet you at the pub" email from Tom, who cares apart from Fred?
| Quote: | | Throughout the history of the world, nations have allowed tyrants to take one small, apparently insignificant step, and then another and another... |
... until the monopoly regulators step in.
Yes, I agree with the historical case, but at this rate someone will mention Bill Gates in the same sentence as Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Bin Laden...
| Quote: | | Taken individually, each little abuse of power hasn't seemed worth making a fuss about, until eventually people wake up to the mess they're in and wonder: "How on earth did we allow that to happen?" |
I'd just like to think it's possible to educate potential customers as to why they need to provide an email address that is actually usable. Then the mess will be somebody else's problem.
All the best,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Joined:
22 Aug 2003
Posts:
3305
Location:
UK
|
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I've just got Paul's blog to load on the nth attempt...
At least I've got a fuller picture now. That pdf about ePostage makes grim reading for an optimist like me, though.
I suppose on this occasion I'll have to leave changing the world to people who know what they're doing.
On the subject of educating hotmail users...
How does that thankyou page work for Sitesell in practice, if anyone in the know is still reading? Do people jump through the hoops or just ask for their money back?
Cheers,
Charlie.
_________________
"Before I speak, I have something important to say."
- Groucho Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
