Bitcoin Forum
July 02, 2024, 06:48:26 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 »
1121  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 26, 2013, 12:45:46 AM
I am clearly very dumb.

Nulla et massa vitae tortor condimentum vestibulum.  Cheesy

Keep going.. it only serves to prove my point.
agreed k9 has a pretentious over evaluation of his contributions to any given conversation? (yay you dids latins. ..momma's so proud. .validate . . validate. . .validate. ..dead language. . .dead personality)

I feel that I put way more into any one of my posts by pasting the output of a lorem ipsum engine than int03h has put into all of his posts together.

Back onto a real conversation. I was hoping you could provide an example of a major online retailer that charges the full amount to your credit card (not just an authorization) for a pre-order.

Here is my post on the subject (sans nonsense)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2270904#msg2270904
1122  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 26, 2013, 12:22:14 AM
I am clearly very dumb.

Nulla et massa vitae tortor condimentum vestibulum.  Cheesy
1123  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 26, 2013, 12:06:05 AM
I am not really clear on what it is you were implying

And you never will be. You could get 1000 posts in a day and you would still not understand a thing.

So you refuse to articulate the bet, but continue to talk shit. I see.

You don't understand anything I articulate, remember?  So dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Maecenas lacinia lacinia molestie. Maecenas porttitor consectetur nulla non pretium. Mauris at risus ut leo luctus eleifend.

Sorry I am a noob.. I don't understand .. throw a dog a bone..

Umm .. I believe we were discussing a bet ... you still talking shit .. or is your money where you mouth isn't ?

Have someone explain my post to you. It was clear, concise, and to the point. Moreover, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut at nulla enim, sed pretium odio.
1124  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 26, 2013, 12:04:15 AM
I am not really clear on what it is you were implying

And you never will be. You could get 1000 posts in a day and you would still not understand a thing.

K9 - so assuming you have been following and read the posts in this thread from the beginning - are you defending xian's actions towards BFL?

[EDIT] and do you think it wise he blew away $15k by bitching when he could have sold his 2012 pre-order (for 5 x what he paid).

With hindsight, of course he should have sold his units. I personally never thought BFL would stoop to canceling the orders of angry customers. Especially the ones from June/July of 2012. I *think* BFL has the right to refund any of the pre-orders, should they wish to do so. On the other hand, that might open them up to legal issues if they don't deliver on a significant chunk of their pre-orders. I have already posted the relevant sections of Missouri law they are in violation of. It seems to be a pretty powerful statute.

It is pretty clear Xian could have gotten more than just his refund had he sold his orders on these forums. He has also been a bit strident about it, his spelling and grammar have been mediocre as well. However, he is righteously pissed, and I am not at my literary best when I am upset either. Still, his actions in this thread leave a lot of room for improvement.  Wink

I take your point that forcing a cancellation from an angry customer is bad - and I think unprecedented for BFL - if it is unprecedented which I think it is - does that not make you think how bad this guys rants must have been...

Bad for whom? Why does BFL care what some random person types on these forums? Josh himself has already declared that bitcointalk.org is irrelevant to them.
AFAIK, BFL has the power to review every post on their forums, so there is no excuse for content appearing there that they do not condone. That is what makes me curious. Unless Xian struck a nerve. Impossible to know at this stage.
1125  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 11:59:59 PM
the Implied contract your talking about is covered under UCC there it the revision (which I understand to be the controlling factor) for the state of missouri:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0505.HTM

Quote
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

(2) On termination of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior default or performance survives.

(3) Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of "cancellation", "rescission", or the like of the lease contract may not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent default.

(4) Rights and remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all rights and remedies available under this Article for default.

(5) Neither rescission nor a claim for rescission of the lease contract nor rejection or return of the goods may bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other right or remedy.


http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap407.htm
Quote
407.020. 1. The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce or the solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose, as defined in section 407.453, in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an unlawful practice. The use by any person, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce or the solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose, as defined in section 407.453, in or from the state of Missouri of the fact that the attorney general has approved any filing required by this chapter as the approval, sanction or endorsement of any activity, project or action of such person, is declared to be an unlawful practice. Any act, use or employment declared unlawful by this subsection violates this subsection whether committed before, during or after the sale, advertisement or solicitation.
That I believe would be the governing statute in the state of Missouri

Now I'm no lawyer, so correct me where you see fit to argue point or redirect me to where you feel I haven't looked.

but it seems that (1) says that cancellation relieves both parties from "obligations that are still executory", so unless he can prove prior breach, there is no recourse

please let me know if I miss something.

also  christians(xian)'s order https://i.imgur.com/V2b80U1.jpg
was placed when the web site appeared like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120628113158/http://www.butterflylabs.com/order-form-bitforce-sc-single/

it cleared stated "currently scheduled for October", which clearly show "scheduled" not "shipping" which is a huge difference.

so that's out as point of default

Yes, when he ordered it was scheduled for October. After that date came and went, the series of misrepresentations about the state of the product became more numerous. But even before then, statements about measurements of power usage and performance were made. It was only after BFL shipped their first few units that people realized that those claims about power usage could not possibly have been valid. In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that BFL did not have any working chips at all by October 2012. Of course, that would have made it impossible to measure the power usage of them.

and since he and everybody else who didn't just accept the refund agreed to the new specification in accordance with UCC, there isn't much else to say... .

now I'm no lawyer and this isn't to be construed as legal advice, feel free to point to the mistakes, as I would enjoy learning through interaction. Smiley truly Smiley

Yes. Having their customers agree to the new specifications was a very important legal hurdle for BFL to surmount. Had they not done so, they would have been up a creek sans paddle so to speak. The problem is that BFL took payment in full for the pre-orders. Most companies do not charge your card for the full amount until they can ship you the product. They authorize the purchase, but do not complete it. BFL could not support credit cards to pre-order because CC companies frown on imaginary products being sold (they will yank your account and freeze your funds). That puts them into a very gray legal area. For instance, how do they account for those funds? They cannot be sales because they have not shipped the units. Do they collect sales tax? Do they escrow the funds? Are they using the funds for capital investments and/or development? Did they notify their customers that their pre-order funds would be used for these purposes and does that constitute a solicitation of investment?

so I see this a good old game of chase the point. . .
actually the process of getting their customers to agree was non-voluntary and in compliance with the legal guidelines established by the UCC (you can look that up I'm not your personal wikipedia Tongue ).  not only was it proper, but legally necessary to continue the "implied" contract you are so fond of. also required by Missouri consumer protections.
I said it was important for them to have their customers agree to the new specifications. See my bolded quote. I am not sure why you would call me agreeing with you a game of chase the point.


 . . .Most companies do charge pre-orders. . .otherwise it's called a reservation.
That is not true at all AFAIK. Amazon, Ebay, Barnes & Nobles, and Newegg will authorize the purchase (which is reserves the balance on your card, but does not count as money you have spent and you pay no interest) for an item not in stock, but will not actually charge the purchase to your card until the item you ordered ships. You can try it and then check your credit card statement online. For larger purchases, most companies take a deposit for pre-orders like houses, cars, in order to limit their liability.

Relevant pages from retailers about pre-order items:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/help/cds2.asp?pid=26974
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=201132830
http://help.newegg.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/386/kw/pre%20order%20charges/session/L3RpbWUvMTM2OTUyNjQxNi9zaWQvNkgxQmg2cmw%3D

1126  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 11:28:18 PM
I am not really clear on what it is you were implying

And you never will be. You could get 1000 posts in a day and you would still not understand a thing.

So you refuse to articulate the bet, but continue to talk shit. I see.

You don't understand anything I articulate, remember?  So dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Maecenas lacinia lacinia molestie. Maecenas porttitor consectetur nulla non pretium. Mauris at risus ut leo luctus eleifend.
1127  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 11:26:01 PM
I am not really clear on what it is you were implying

And you never will be. You could get 1000 posts in a day and you would still not understand a thing.

K9 - so assuming you have been following and read the posts in this thread from the beginning - are you defending xian's actions towards BFL?

[EDIT] and do you think it wise he blew away $15k by bitching when he could have sold his 2012 pre-order (for 5 x what he paid).

With hindsight, of course he should have sold his units. I personally never thought BFL would stoop to canceling the orders of angry customers. Especially the ones from June/July of 2012. I *think* BFL has the right to refund any of the pre-orders, should they wish to do so. On the other hand, that might open them up to legal issues if they don't deliver on a significant chunk of their pre-orders. I have already posted the relevant sections of Missouri law they are in violation of. It seems to be a pretty powerful statute.

It is pretty clear Xian could have gotten more than just his refund had he sold his orders on these forums. He has also been a bit strident about it, his spelling and grammar have been mediocre as well. However, he is righteously pissed, and I am not at my literary best when I am upset either. Still, his actions in this thread leave a lot of room for improvement.  Wink
1128  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 11:13:46 PM
I am not really clear on what it is you were implying

And you never will be. You could get 1000 posts in a day and you would still not understand a thing.
1129  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 11:12:00 PM
the Implied contract your talking about is covered under UCC there it the revision (which I understand to be the controlling factor) for the state of missouri:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0505.HTM

Quote
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

(2) On termination of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior default or performance survives.

(3) Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of "cancellation", "rescission", or the like of the lease contract may not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent default.

(4) Rights and remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all rights and remedies available under this Article for default.

(5) Neither rescission nor a claim for rescission of the lease contract nor rejection or return of the goods may bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other right or remedy.


http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap407.htm
Quote
407.020. 1. The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce or the solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose, as defined in section 407.453, in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an unlawful practice. The use by any person, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce or the solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose, as defined in section 407.453, in or from the state of Missouri of the fact that the attorney general has approved any filing required by this chapter as the approval, sanction or endorsement of any activity, project or action of such person, is declared to be an unlawful practice. Any act, use or employment declared unlawful by this subsection violates this subsection whether committed before, during or after the sale, advertisement or solicitation.
That I believe would be the governing statute in the state of Missouri

Now I'm no lawyer, so correct me where you see fit to argue point or redirect me to where you feel I haven't looked.

but it seems that (1) says that cancellation relieves both parties from "obligations that are still executory", so unless he can prove prior breach, there is no recourse

please let me know if I miss something.

also  christians(xian)'s order https://i.imgur.com/V2b80U1.jpg
was placed when the web site appeared like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120628113158/http://www.butterflylabs.com/order-form-bitforce-sc-single/

it cleared stated "currently scheduled for October", which clearly show "scheduled" not "shipping" which is a huge difference.

so that's out as point of default

Yes, when he ordered it was scheduled for October. After that date came and went, the series of misrepresentations about the state of the product became more numerous. But even before then, statements about measurements of power usage and performance were made. It was only after BFL shipped their first few units that people realized that those claims about power usage could not possibly have been valid. In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that BFL did not have any working chips at all by October 2012. Of course, that would have made it impossible to measure the power usage of them.

and since he and everybody else who didn't just accept the refund agreed to the new specification in accordance with UCC, there isn't much else to say... .

now I'm no lawyer and this isn't to be construed as legal advice, feel free to point to the mistakes, as I would enjoy learning through interaction. Smiley truly Smiley

Yes. Having their customers agree to the new specifications was a very important legal hurdle for BFL to surmount. Had they not done so, they would have been up a creek sans paddle so to speak. The problem is that BFL took payment in full for the pre-orders. Most companies do not charge your card for the full amount until they can ship you the product. They authorize the purchase, but do not complete it. BFL could not support credit cards to pre-order because CC companies frown on imaginary products being sold (they will yank your account and freeze your funds). That puts them into a very gray legal area. For instance, how do they account for those funds? They cannot be sales because they have not shipped the units. Do they collect sales tax? Do they escrow the funds? Are they using the funds for capital investments and/or development? Did they notify their customers that their pre-order funds would be used for these purposes and does that constitute a solicitation of investment?

Edit: And yes, ASICMiner has only achieved 24% of the network hash rate. I believe only Avalon unit account for a larger percentage. But ASICMiner is walking carefully for very good reason. Right now, friedcat and btcguild could get together and attempt a 51% attack. The fact that it only takes 2 entities to accomplish this makes a lot of people nervous.
1130  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 10:52:11 PM
You are ignoring one thing...

Are you an avalon asic owner k9quaint? - you don't have to answer but I'd be interested...

No. I do mine, but I am not currently using Avalon, ASICMiner or BFL.

I should thank BFL for sucking up all the capital that would have gone to either Avalon or ASICMiner. That capital would have been converted to hashing equipment sooner and impacted the network hash rate (and thus my profits) sooner. BFL has put money in my pocket by being so late.
Amen, I keep telling people that BFL reps are a secret fans of Avalon. They are probably just shy.

If only you actually had one PL. Am I right <wink> !?

It's well known puerto has a 60 GH/s avalon asic - he tells everyone about it - and he slags off BFL any chance he can get on any thread in the forum - correlation ?

People who put money into Avalon will probably get their chips and/or mining units. ASICMiner has also been a reliable way to convert capital into network hash rate. There is currently no evidence that I am aware of to support the contrary.

To date BFL is an unreliable way to convert your money into hash rate. Moreover, there have been a continuous series of delays which benefited all miners. To maximize their profits, every miner should encourage people looking for ASICs to order from BFL.
1131  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: *New PCI-E Based ASIC miners 1.2th/s - 1.9th's +\- 10%* on: May 25, 2013, 10:24:10 PM
There is trust feature on the forum, you people don't know that? Guy is obviously scammer so why prolong this thread? Are you really so bored or what?



I am bored.
After careful analysis, I will fling my BTC indiscriminately at random BTC addresses. This has a higher chance of success than ordering from the OP.
1132  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 10:10:32 PM
I am sorry I missed your point

Yep. I don't expect you to understand anything.

Over under on when int03h vanishes into the setting sun: 18 days.

I'll take the under  Grin

You want to bet on that?

<EDIT> I don't understand because you don't make any fucking sense.. 


Go put a bet on a bitcoin betting site. I don't do anything without escrow that involves people who only have posts dated from today.  Cheesy
Of course I don't make sense to you. Nothing I type will ever make sense to you.
1133  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:58:13 PM
I am sorry I missed your point

Yep. I don't expect you to understand anything.

Over under on when int03h vanishes into the setting sun: 18 days.

I'll take the under  Grin
1134  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL upgrade now offered on 5ghz orders.(screenshot) on: May 25, 2013, 09:55:53 PM
I'm just glad it's gone. Firmware's should be free.

If it was firmware. This sounds to me more like a 3 chip Jala since they took the offer down. Perhaps they ran out of chips binned for 2GH instead of 2.5GH.
1135  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote
Then you come here and warn people, but get insulted by low post count noobs.

Lol .. calling a noob a noob..  you must feel so much better about yourself now.

All of your 15 posts in one day. Very impressive.
How long will this one last? A week? A month?
1136  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:47:35 PM
So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - you behave like a dick. You get thrown out - NO REFUND. This is the proprietors fault somehow?

So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - there is no club, no music

Are you deaf or blind? Either that or incredibly stupid.

Your analogy fails so hard .. try again.

When Xian paid, there was no product.
It is you who is deaf, blind, and all your posts are from today. Very interesting.

How am I the one that is deaf or blind?

I have made no claims except for pointing out that you use false equivalency to prove some bullshit logic that doesn't make any sense at all.

Except you didn't, it wasn't, you haven't, I have, it does. Now run along and play.
1137  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:44:32 PM
A more apt analogy:

You pay in advance entrance fee to a club...

Club turns out to be an empty warehouse filled with fans...

Bouncer threatens you for warning others about the club.

in this case, you take your smokes - finish your drink - take the refund they offer you at the door and fuck off.


Smokes? You didn't buy them at the warehouse. They had no product.
Drink? You didn't buy it at the warehouse They had no product.
You wait for 11 months in the warehouse, then get bounced for complaining about the delays. They do refund your money.
Then you come here and warn people, but get insulted by low post count noobs.
1138  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - you behave like a dick. You get thrown out - NO REFUND. This is the proprietors fault somehow?

So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - there is no club, no music

Are you deaf or blind? Either that or incredibly stupid.

Your analogy fails so hard .. try again.

When Xian paid, there was no product.
It is you who is deaf, blind, and all your posts are from today. Very interesting.
1139  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:38:27 PM
You are ignoring one thing...

Are you an avalon asic owner k9quaint? - you don't have to answer but I'd be interested...

No. I do mine, but I am not currently using Avalon, ASICMiner or BFL.

I should thank BFL for sucking up all the capital that would have gone to either Avalon or ASICMiner. That capital would have been converted to hashing equipment sooner and impacted the network hash rate (and thus my profits) sooner. BFL has put money in my pocket by being so late. Now that Avalon has dumped 400,000+ chips onto the market (plus around 90TH of mining units), it is unlikely that BFL will ship enough product to make a dent in the Bitcoin hash rate. My mining equipment has already paid for itself and is quite power efficient, so I anticipate just letting it run and earning whatever it earns.

The best situation for me is for BFL to trickle out a few units a week while holding onto all the capital that otherwise would go to Avalon or ASICMiner to be converted into hash rate. If I were looking out for my wallet, I should be encouraging people to put their capital in limbo via BFL preorders. BFL might deliver, but Avalon and ASICMiner will almost certainly deliver.
1140  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders on: May 25, 2013, 09:30:04 PM
So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - you behave like a dick. You get thrown out - NO REFUND. This is the proprietors fault somehow?

So you go to a club .. you pay your entrance fee - there is no club, no music, no bar, no dancers, no dance floor, no DJ, no bathrooms, no roof. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. The owners say, there will be a club, just come back in two weeks. You come back in two weeks, but there is still no club. Then you behave like a dick. You don't get thrown out, there is nothing to throw you out of. NO REFUND. This is the proprietors fault.
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!