GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-21-2013, 09:16   #21
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Do you use a certain standard to determine this "stupidity", or is it just defined by people who disagree with you?
It's just a lack of manners on his part. Self esteem issues on his part, that's all. He is an interesting caricature.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:48   #22
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If it can be proven that his supervisors treated him differently because of his beliefs, there is a case here. His lawyers will be very happy about that.

The bold and enlarged red portion of your post above seem to imply that you don't understand a lot about EEO or the first amendment to the Constitution. There is also a very high probability that you do not have a lot of experience in labor relations law. Do some case law searches, and you will realize that being legally protected does not mean that their opinions agree with yours. In fact, discriminating solely based on a religious belief that you disagree with, might open you and your organization up to a rather large amount of financial liability. In fact, a manager posting online that they support that kind of behavior, can open themselves and their employer to a surprising amount of liability, both personal and organizational.
As I understood his post, he was saying that crationists often substitute creationism (actually "Intelligent Design") as an alternate "scientific" theory of origins - that is at least how they package it when they argue that it isn't religion and should be taught in school.

Beliefs asbout scientific issues are not constitutionally protected against discrimination. So, if the guy believed in intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory, it would be hypocritical to claim religious discrimination if he was fired for it.

However, I agree that all "creationism" isn't called "scientific" by believers - just the ID "theory."
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:54   #23
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
As I understood his post, he was saying that crationists often substitute creationism (actually "Intelligent Design") as an alternate "scientific" theory of origins - that is at least how they package it when they argue that it isn't religion and should be taught in school.

Beliefs asbout scientific issues are not constitutionally protected against discrimination. So, if the guy believed in intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory, it would be hypocritical to claim religious discrimination if he was fired for it.

However, I agree that all "creationism" isn't called "scientific" by believers - just the ID "theory."
Would you want to defend a manager who, on tape, clearly said:

"I do not like the fact that you believe in intelligent design, other co-workers don't believe in intelligent design, so based on that, you are fired, now get out you fairy tale believing idiot."

It's hard to get that level of proof of discrimination, but if someone is fired only for their religious beliefs, and you can show the nexus, it can be a good case.

Anyway, there are obviously some details in this particular story that aren't very clear, and a lot more to the story, as usual.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-21-2013 at 09:55..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:13   #24
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Do you use a certain standard to determine this "stupidity", or is it just defined by people who disagree with you?
No it usually has to do with people that babble idiotically without having any of the information... even though it was freely available.

Let me ask you... is Creationism Science or Religion?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:23   #25
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
No it usually has to do with people that babble idiotically without having any of the information... even though it was freely available.

Let me ask you... is Creationism Science or Religion?
If it was created, and that could be proven, it would be science.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:57   #26
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
OK. you're right there.

Looks the claims were weighed and adjudicated. But the statement from another said.



I guess the proper answer should have been, well if that happened, that would be religious discrimination.
In this case it would have been, because his belief in ID did not affect his job duties (other than the fact that he wouldn't stop talking about it during work time to the point that others complained about him harassing them, and his supervisor, who helped get him the job in the first place while knowing that the guy believed in ID, had to ask him to stop - but in fact only asked him to stop during work time and explicitly told him that he could talk about it during non-work hours such as his lunch break, etc. ).

However, as others have pointed out - consider a case where someone's belief in a religious position causes them to actually fail perform their job duties correctly. Suppose someone were purportedly a radiologist but held some hypothetical religious belief that required them to deny that exposure to X-rays had potentially adverse effects, and thus refused to use the body shielding that is normally used when taking X-rays. If that person's employer fired them, would you still consider that 'religious discrimination'?

Or consider someone whose religious beliefs require that they attempt to haste the coming of Armageddon (this is not hypothetical, there are actually people who believe this and act on it, attempting to cause various Biblical prophecies to occur). Would a nuclear plant refusing to hire such a person, when doing so would put that person at the plant's controls, be religious discrimination?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-21-2013 at 11:04..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:17   #27
cowboywannabe
you savvy?
 
cowboywannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: on a planet near you
Posts: 21,863
a priest cant take a job as an abortionist and then say he wont cut the baby up inside the womb because of his religeon, then sue after getting fired for not committing an abortion....saying he was fired because of his religeous beliefs....
__________________
with Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Nyssa, and Tegan.

Facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance...
cowboywannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:29   #28
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
In this case it would have been, because his belief in ID did not affect his job duties (other than the fact that he wouldn't stop talking about it during work time to the point that others complained about him harassing them, and his supervisor, who helped get him the job in the first place while knowing that the guy believed in ID, had to ask him to stop - but in fact only asked him to stop during work time and explicitly told him that he could talk about it during non-work hours such as his lunch break, etc. ).

However, as others have pointed out - consider a case where someone's belief in a religious position causes them to actually fail perform their job duties correctly. Suppose someone were purportedly a radiologist but held some hypothetical religious belief that required them to deny that exposure to X-rays had potentially adverse effects, and thus refused to use the body shielding that is normally used when taking X-rays. If that person's employer fired them, would you still consider that 'religious discrimination'?

Or consider someone whose religious beliefs require that they attempt to haste the coming of Armageddon (this is not hypothetical, there are actually people who believe this and act on it, attempting to cause various Biblical prophecies to occur). Would a nuclear plant refusing to hire such a person, when doing so would put that person at the plant's controls, be religious discrimination?
All people are unique, just like everyone else. Same goes with all situations. You'd have to really know all the details to know if what happened was fair or not, or even if fair was possible. I was responding to a particular question, that I thought was rather obvious. Turns out, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Sometimes things can be accommodated. I've been to combat with conscientious objectors.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:31   #29
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboywannabe View Post
a priest cant take a job as an abortionist and then say he wont cut the baby up inside the womb because of his religeon, then sue after getting fired for not committing an abortion....saying he was fired because of his religeous beliefs....
There are plenty of examples of people gaming the system for their own agenda. Many times, both sides of an issue will do that, especially where the courts are involved.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 12:36   #30
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You'd have to really know all the details to know if what happened was fair or not, or even if fair was possible.

Of course.

And I gave you specific hypothetical situations and asked your opinion of them, strictly in the context of the information provided. (I.E. do you consider it religious discrimination when the fact a decision is based on is *not* religious, but the cause of that fact *is* religious - a radiologist refusing to provide a protective vest is not a religious condition, but in the hypothetical example the *cause* of the hypothetical radiologist refusing to provide the vest is their religious beliefs)

You could just simply answer, qualifying your statement with something along the lines of 'in the absence of other factors, I think such and such' - that would be fairly simple, don't you think? I'm not going to add super-secret qualifying conditions to the hypothetical situations I gave, I just wanted to see what you thought on very specific point (I.E., non-religious causes of termination where the reason the non-religious cause is present is due to a person's religious belief).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-21-2013 at 12:37..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 14:04   #31
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Would you want to defend a manager who, on tape, clearly said:

"I do not like the fact that you believe in intelligent design, other co-workers don't believe in intelligent design, so based on that, you are fired, now get out you fairy tale believing idiot."

It's hard to get that level of proof of discrimination, but if someone is fired only for their religious beliefs, and you can show the nexus, it can be a good case.

Anyway, there are obviously some details in this particular story that aren't very clear, and a lot more to the story, as usual.
The point 2 of us made, and you ignored, is that christians often claim intelligent design is science, NOT religious belief. Under that theory, if the court would buy it, or there was significant evidence of the plaintiff claiming ID was not a religious belief, there would be no evidence someone was fired "for their religious beliefs." That could be an easy case for the defendant.

You can be equitably stuck with a false "fact" as a matter of law, if you have claimed it is true. There is a case, Stambovsky v. Ackley, where a court ruled that a house was haunted as a metter of law. The buyer sued the former owner for selling him a haunted house - normally that would be laughed out of court and the former owner, of course, said "there's no such thing as ghosts." However, the former owner had told people the house was haunted before he sold it, so he was stuck with that fact as a matter of law and lost the case. "having reported [the ghosts'] presence in both a national publication... and the local press... defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted."

As I said, however, that would only work with ID, not all religious creationism.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 01-21-2013 at 14:05..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 14:09   #32
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Of course.

And I gave you specific hypothetical situations and asked your opinion of them, strictly in the context of the information provided. (I.E. do you consider it religious discrimination when the fact a decision is based on is *not* religious, but the cause of that fact *is* religious - a radiologist refusing to provide a protective vest is not a religious condition, but in the hypothetical example the *cause* of the hypothetical radiologist refusing to provide the vest is their religious beliefs)

You could just simply answer, qualifying your statement with something along the lines of 'in the absence of other factors, I think such and such' - that would be fairly simple, don't you think? I'm not going to add super-secret qualifying conditions to the hypothetical situations I gave, I just wanted to see what you thought on very specific point (I.E., non-religious causes of termination where the reason the non-religious cause is present is due to a person's religious belief).
OK, in the radiologist case, just to show that there are still not enough details to be sure to go the right way, what if he signed a waiver that absolved me and the facility for any of his damages due to exposure to radiation, or if we only let him work in the Ultrasound room. Or since he's a radiologist, he reads imaging from home and dictates the results into the system. etc etc etc.

So, If I may hasten the arrival here. In a case that has nothing to do with religious belief, it's not very likely that religious discrimination is going to be an issue, unless someone pushes you off a subway platform in front of an oncoming train, because she hates muslims, and mistook you for one.....

Cookie cutter answers don't always work.

Back to the original question.

Quote:
why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism?
In the absence of any further details, it would seem that fits the legal definition of religious discrimination if there is a direct cause and effect relationship, as the question implied.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-21-2013 at 14:12..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 14:57   #33
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
OK, in the radiologist case, just to show that there are still not enough details to be sure to go the right way, what if he signed a waiver that absolved me and the facility for any of his damages due to exposure to radiation, or if we only let him work in the Ultrasound room.
First, the vest I am talking about protects the patient, not the radiologist. Have you never had an x-ray? The radiologist is not the person having x-rays blasted into them. So your "the radiologist signed a waiver" condition is irrelevant.

Second, you really don't understand that I'm not asking you to add random other factors, do you?

Let me be clearer:

In the radiologist hypothetical example, assuming no other factors: The radiologist gets fired because the radiologist refused to put the protective vest on patients in violation of policy, and the radiologist refused to do so because of a religious belief.

Was that radiologist discriminated against because of their religion?

Or, to state it another way, do you consider it discrimination to fire an employee because they refuse to do a required job duty solely because they have a religious belief that requires them to not perform that duty? With the qualifier that the previous statement is the *only* issue?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-21-2013 at 15:08..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:10   #34
JBnTX
God Bless Texas
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between The Red And Rio Grande
Posts: 14,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
...
Let me ask you... is Creationism Science or Religion?
Religion.
JBnTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:25   #35
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
First, the vest I am talking about protects the patient, not the radiologist. Have you never had an x-ray? The radiologist is not the person having x-rays blasted into them. So your "the radiologist signed a waiver" condition is irrelevant.

Second, you really don't understand that I'm not asking you to add random other factors, do you?

Let me be clearer:

In the radiologist hypothetical example, assuming no other factors: The radiologist gets fired because the radiologist refused to put the protective vest on patients in violation of policy, and the radiologist refused to do so because of a religious belief.

Was that radiologist discriminated against because of their religion?

Or, to state it another way, do you consider it discrimination to fire an employee because they refuse to do a required job duty solely because they have a religious belief that requires them to not perform that duty? With the qualifier that the previous statement is the *only* issue?
And how much ionizing radiation would the patient need protecting from if they were getting an ultrasound again? How about if the radiologist was just teleworking, not doing exams (note to others, radiology TECHNICIANS usually perform the exams, RADIOLOGISTS, MD's that have years of additional training, look at and interpret imaging, and yes, there are exceptions to that basic rule too, especially for interventional radiologists. RADIOLOGISTS can make a very good productive living, never having to lay eyes directly on a patient. So, the question isn't whether I have ever had an x-ray, but whether you know what a radiologist is or not?)

So, again to try to hasten our arrival, your question was if the guy was discriminated against because of something other than a religious freedom, would it be religious discrimination.

Answer: no, not most of the time.

But, back to the original question that was asked that I answered, and you still have not said exactly what problem you have with that answer remains.

Quote:
why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism?

In the absence of any further details, it would seem that fits the legal definition of religious discrimination if there is a direct cause and effect relationship, as the question implied.

Is there a point you are trying to make, or is this supposed to be circuitous by design?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:32   #36
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
The point 2 of us made, and you ignored, is that christians often claim intelligent design is science, NOT religious belief. Under that theory, if the court would buy it, or there was significant evidence of the plaintiff claiming ID was not a religious belief, there would be no evidence someone was fired "for their religious beliefs." That could be an easy case for the defendant.

You can be equitably stuck with a false "fact" as a matter of law, if you have claimed it is true. There is a case, Stambovsky v. Ackley, where a court ruled that a house was haunted as a metter of law. The buyer sued the former owner for selling him a haunted house - normally that would be laughed out of court and the former owner, of course, said "there's no such thing as ghosts." However, the former owner had told people the house was haunted before he sold it, so he was stuck with that fact as a matter of law and lost the case. "having reported [the ghosts'] presence in both a national publication... and the local press... defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted."

As I said, however, that would only work with ID, not all religious creationism.
I don't think I ignored it, but I did disagree with it. With no proof either way, both creation and wild random chance are religious beliefs, based on faith.

The truth is, that life was either created here, brought from somewhere else, or just happened as part of a natural phenomena, or something in between those, or some kind ofcombination thereof. Or even something that none of us have considered possible yet? Who really knows? The only fact is that people do believe certain details about the earliest origins of life, even to the point of claiming knowledge.

I love the haunted house case. Just goes to show you, humans, no matter how hard we try to make things fair and objective, and to make sense, will always have examples of where foolproof systems weren't.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-21-2013 at 15:33..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:40   #37
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Religion.
I agree... so it has no place in public schools.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:44   #38
Cavalry Doc
Platinum Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,477


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I agree... so it has no place in public schools.
Skipped over a very significant issue, didn't you?

If it were created, and as an agnostic atheist, that should still be at least a little possible, wouldn't it be science?

Science is the discovery of what is, and if we discovered that life were created, that most certainly would not exclude the teaching of evolution, and creation would simply be another detail of the natural order of the world.


I'd think until it's settled, and there is irrefutable proof one way or the other, they should both be discussed. Education requires critical thinking, examining opposing viewpoints, and reaching conclusions.

Your version sounds a lot more like indoctrination.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 01-21-2013 at 15:44..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:45   #39
JBnTX
God Bless Texas
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between The Red And Rio Grande
Posts: 14,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post

I agree... so it has no place in public schools.
Damn! I walked right into that one.
JBnTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 15:50   #40
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Damn! I walked right into that one.
Can't have it both ways ya know? Can't teach religion in a public school. Can't be discrimination if you get fired for what kind of science you favor.

But I do agree it's religion as not much of it is supported by any evidence.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 01-21-2013 at 15:50..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 924
289 Members
635 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31