HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

University/College Questions Part III (incl. protest discussion)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-23-2012, 12:29 PM
  #51
overlords
Global Moderator
Canada's Mod
 
overlords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 24,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamcrazy3 View Post
How come some people choose not to go to university if everyone wants a better future?
Because University is not at all a guarantee that you will be successful at anything. Duh? I really can't figure out if that was a serious question.

__________________



"overlords is one of my favorite people on this entire site." - Hfboards
overlords is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 12:36 PM
  #52
Adamcrazy3
Registered User
 
Adamcrazy3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Fes, Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overlords View Post
Because University is not at all a guarantee that you will be successful at anything. Duh? I really can't figure out if that was a serious question.
It's not at all a guarantee but the chances are much higher if you do than if you don't.

Adamcrazy3 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 12:40 PM
  #53
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewBACHa View Post
wait to the next attack vs normal populations.
that they block port of montreal is ok but blocking a bridges is more meh

Students associations dont want to negociate a raise
some of them wants a free education and others want a cancellation of the raise.

They talked to the 3 leaders of FEUQ FECQ and CLASSÉ on radio yesterday

The governement invited them to negociate a raise months ago but they refused to go.

When Martineau asked them if they'd accept a minor raise, they answered that universities has the money to pay.

Students associations do not want to negociate anything.
The negociations from which the students slammed the door weren't negociations at all, we had the right to discuss only one question: "How much will the hike be?" There were no discussions about if a hike was needed or if a serious study was needed before changing anything. all the other questions were decided by the Principals, the Liberals and the Employers Council.

The numbers that the government uses to say that universities need money are the ones from the CRÉPUQ (Principals and Rectors), they're NEVER going to say that they have enough money. We have to base these decisions on serious studies and true negociations, we can't afford to trust the mismanaging SOBs who waste our money by hundreds of millions.


Last edited by RonFournier: 03-23-2012 at 12:47 PM.
RonFournier is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 12:51 PM
  #54
kassian
Registered User
 
kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Everyone, always want a better future.
Everyone except the politicians. Their goal is to get re-elected, period. There's no reason for them to come up with long-term solutions that would benefit future generations.

kassian is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 12:59 PM
  #55
llamateizer
Registered User
 
llamateizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Country:
Posts: 5,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
The negociations from which the students slammed the door weren't negociations at all, we had the right to discuss only one question: "How much will the hike be?" There were no discussions about if a hike was needed or if a serious study was needed before changing anything. all the other questions were decided by the Principals, the Liberals and the Employers Council.

The numbers that the government uses to say that universities need money are the ones from the CRÉPUQ (Principals and Rectors), they're NEVER going to say that they have enough money. We have to base these decisions on serious studies and true negociations, we can't afford to trust the mismanaging SOBs who waste our money by hundreds of millions.
With actual economical situation, I highly doubt that there will be no raise. serious studies is only a strategy to gain time

Why not give a raise, do the study and then adjust. If it ends that no raise was required, refund every student



as for the student that recieve an accoustic bomb...Doctors said that its almost impossible that it was the accoustic bomb.

He had no auditive trauma



also what I hate about "democratic" election at schools is the way they did it. at Edouard montpetit college,

they made a vote which was "unlimited strike until the governement solve the issue"
it was rejected, but redid a new vote with "2 week strike".

its kind of gay


Last edited by llamateizer: 03-23-2012 at 01:06 PM.
llamateizer is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 01:05 PM
  #56
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
The negociations from which the students slammed the door weren't negociations at all, we had the right to discuss only one question: "How much will the hike be?" There were no discussions about if a hike was needed or if a serious study was needed before changing anything. all the other questions were decided by the Principals, the Liberals and the Employers Council.
Tuition has to rise at some point, if only because of inflation. The ASSÉE seeks totally free education. They won't ever accept an hike no matter what.

The real way to fix the never ending psychodrama that are the tuition fees in Quebec would be either to set the student's cost responsibilities to a permanent and agreed upon % of the total educational budget (say around 15-20% I guess, like it is right now IIRC?) or agree for an immediate hike now and an automatic rise every year that follows the increase of cost of living. That's a sustainable plan, at least more sustainable than our current model of systematic confrontation. But if you are against hikes no matter what, and in fact openly promote absolutely free education, and you're not interested in reconsidering your positions no matter how unpopular, you're not helping.

The problem is that, deep down, the big students rights groups are heavily composed of anticapitalists extremists who have a much wider agenda than simply protecting the students. They are mainly driven by ideology, not actually fixing stuff. The cyclical student protests are a nice way to get exposure, and there's no need for them to be stopped any time soon.

Goldthorpe is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 01:27 PM
  #57
shamrun
Registered User
 
shamrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,215
vCash: 500


saw this and it just made me laugh.

shamrun is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 03:02 PM
  #58
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
The negociations from which the students slammed the door weren't negociations at all, we had the right to discuss only one question: "How much will the hike be?" There were no discussions about if a hike was needed or if a serious study was needed before changing anything. all the other questions were decided by the Principals, the Liberals and the Employers Council.

The numbers that the government uses to say that universities need money are the ones from the CRÉPUQ (Principals and Rectors), they're NEVER going to say that they have enough money. We have to base these decisions on serious studies and true negociations, we can't afford to trust the mismanaging SOBs who waste our money by h]undreds of millions.
I may be wrong but, didnt the students slammed the doors of pretty much every nego ?

Not saying those students were wrong to do so, but maybe it's a sign of the real weight you have in such discussions or maybe it's a sign that (whoever is in charge, PQ, PLQ' doesnt matter) it's just a giant show d'boucane ?



@turtleneck plek, baby boomers are +/- 60 years old, born shortly after WW2 for the most part. I'm part of generation X.

and about your study, arent the vast majority of students part of that age group (18/34) ?

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 03:34 PM
  #59
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
baby boomers are +/- 60 years old, born shortly after WW2 for the most part.
Baby boomers is the demographic born from 1946-1964. The generation is notorious for reaping the benefits of their parent's civil societal movements and social program progressivism, but ironically being against civil society or protesting.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 03:41 PM
  #60
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Baby boomers is the demographic born from 1946-1964. The generation is notorious for reaping the benefits of their parent's civil societal movements and social program progressivism, but ironically being against civil society or protesting.
.NO.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 03:47 PM
  #61
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
.NO.
The U.S. Census Bureau, along with countless other sources proves you wrong.

Quote:
This increasing median age is driven by the aging of the population born during the Baby Boom after World War II (1946 to 1964). About 30 percent of the population in 1994 were born during the Baby Boom.
http://www.census.gov/population/www...e/natproj.html

Quote:
Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1943 through 1960, when annual births increased over 4,000,000. Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, well known for their generational theory, define the social generation of Boomers as the cohorts born from 1943 to 1960, who were too young to have any personal memory of World War II, but old enough to remember the postwar American High.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer#cite_note-9

guest1467 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 03:59 PM
  #62
Joe Cole
Registered User
 
Joe Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,174
vCash: 500
I find it really funny that students are so willing to fund the increasing costs of their education with le Plan Nord and other natural resources exports.

These are the same folks that speak up for the environment and native issues, but when it comes to them getting what they need.... all those things mean a little less.

There is no easy solution. Education is like everything else in our lives, it is getting more expensive. After we realize that the existing tax base is squeezed to the max, user fees is the only fair way to pay for ALL of societies needs, not just education.

As for Governments being in the pockets of big business... this ain't new. It's as old as centralized governments themselves. We need to keep the pressure on politicians to keep them honest, but it is truly naive to think that it is new, or can be solved by having a march down the street.

P.S. this hike has been debated for years, making it seem like it was thrust upon students without warning makes the student movement seem much less serious than then want to appear to be.

Joe Cole is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 04:02 PM
  #63
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
The U.S. Census Bureau, along with countless other sources proves you wrong.



http://www.census.gov/population/www...e/natproj.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer#cite_note-9
your proof is 3 saying 1960, and 1 saying 64... please tell me you arent a law student


Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1943 through 1960

Strauss and Neil Howe, well known for their generational theory, define the social generation of Boomers as the cohorts born from 1943 to 1960

Doug Owram argues that the Canadian boom took place from 1943 to 1960

Bernard Salt places the Australian baby boom between 1943 and 1960

Another definition for the Baby Boom is the decade after the Second World War, that is 1946 to 1955

Le taux annuel de naissances pour 1 000 habitants « atteint son plancher au Canada en 1937 à 20,1. L'amélioration des conditions économiques entraîne sa remontée, qui s'accélère pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Ce taux atteint 24,3 par 1 000 habitants en 1945. En 1946, il grimpe à 27,2 et fluctue entre 27 et 28,5 jusqu'en 1959 puis redescend progressivement par la suite »


Yup, I'm proven wrong.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 04:46 PM
  #64
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
your proof is 3 saying 1960, and 1 saying 64... please tell me you arent a law student


Landon Jones, who coined the term "baby boomer" in his book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, defined the span of the baby-boom generation as extending from 1943 through 1960

Strauss and Neil Howe, well known for their generational theory, define the social generation of Boomers as the cohorts born from 1943 to 1960

Doug Owram argues that the Canadian boom took place from 1943 to 1960

Bernard Salt places the Australian baby boom between 1943 and 1960

Another definition for the Baby Boom is the decade after the Second World War, that is 1946 to 1955

Le taux annuel de naissances pour 1 000 habitants « atteint son plancher au Canada en 1937 à 20,1. L'amélioration des conditions économiques entraîne sa remontée, qui s'accélère pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Ce taux atteint 24,3 par 1 000 habitants en 1945. En 1946, il grimpe à 27,2 et fluctue entre 27 et 28,5 jusqu'en 1959 puis redescend progressivement par la suite »


Yup, I'm proven wrong.
Uh, it was rather obvious I was using the US Bureau of Census definition.

While all of these definitions contradict your statement of "mainly shortly after WWII." WWII ended in 1945...in no shape or form is 15-20 years ever classified as "shortly."

guest1467 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 05:34 PM
  #65
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Cole View Post
I find it really funny that students are so willing to fund the increasing costs of their education with le Plan Nord and other natural resources exports.

These are the same folks that speak up for the environment and native issues, but when it comes to them getting what they need.... all those things mean a little less.

There is no easy solution. Education is like everything else in our lives, it is getting more expensive. After we realize that the existing tax base is squeezed to the max, user fees is the only fair way to pay for ALL of societies needs, not just education.

As for Governments being in the pockets of big business... this ain't new. It's as old as centralized governments themselves. We need to keep the pressure on politicians to keep them honest, but it is truly naive to think that it is new, or can be solved by having a march down the street.

P.S. this hike has been debated for years, making it seem like it was thrust upon students without warning makes the student movement seem much less serious than then want to appear to be.
I'm all for exploiting our ressources, but we have to do it in the respect of our environmental, property rights (forced expropriations) and natives laws. Right now the government is rushing us into a huge mining project without reviewing and changing our late-1800's mining laws (the "free mining" concept).

I don't see a contradiction between these positions and the will to finance public programs trough the amelioration of the mining system.

RonFournier is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 05:35 PM
  #66
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Uh, it was rather obvious I was using the US Bureau of Census definition.

While all of these definitions contradict your statement of "mainly shortly after WWII." WWII ended in 1945...in no shape or form is 15-20 years ever classified as "shortly."
we happen not to be americans...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 06:01 PM
  #67
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
we happen not to be americans...
Baby Boomers is an American term brah.

But thanks for missing the point entirely.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 06:24 PM
  #68
raz123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 192
vCash: 500
This should be a mandatory read to whoever wants to seriously discuss the hike:



EDUCATION: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

Judging by what we’ve been hearing every day lately, Quebec universities would appear to be severely underfunded, leaving them unable to provide a quality education and actively participate in the Quebec economy. People say that there’s no choice but to raise tuition fees. Besides, students will earn higher salaries once they graduate. So by going into debt, they are really making a profitable investment in their own human capital, or so we are told. But what’s the truth?

Most of the “debates” currently underway are about figures: how much should we invest in education, and who should foot the bill? However, one fundamental question is rarely raised: what is the purpose of education? Some would have education become a center for intellectual entrepreneurship that produces employees and marketable diplomas. This suggests a radical change in the mission of the university, which was originally geared toward transmitting humanity’s cultural, intellectual, and scientific heritage and honing students’ critical thinking skills.

Beyond financial issues, public debate should first center on this restructuring of education. Before handing over the reins of the education system to businesspeople and before accepting the arguments that higher tuition fees are inevitable and that free education is an outdated utopian ideal, doesn’t it make sense to take a timeout to reflect and really question what is happening to students and education in Quebec?

No matter what we may think at first glance, it is worth taking the time to carefully examine this question, considering what is at stake. Could something else be lurking behind what is often presented as a simple accounting adjustment? After looking at the measures adopted in the last budget, this brief paper will carefully examine the arguments of those seeking to raise tuition fees and make education an institution essentially ruled by economic concerns.


Keep reading, source: Do we really need to raise tuition fees?


Last edited by raz123: 03-23-2012 at 07:08 PM.
raz123 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 07:48 PM
  #69
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Baby Boomers is an American term brah.

But thanks for missing the point entirely.
what point ?

oh! you mean trying to prove me wrong with info (you posted) that shows I'm not ?

really, buddah, you seem like a smart kid and all, but if there's one suggestion I can make... if you ever see a job post that requires debating and argumentation, do yourself a favor and dont apply.

cause really, you posted a date (1964), and to prove your point, almost all the info you provided talks about 1960 at most...

it's like when you talk about free tuition (or freeze at worst), come on man, you're one of the living proof (assuming you dont lie) one can go to school and work while having a rent to pay and all AND manage not to have astronomical debt...

seriously, you have zero credibility on this buddah.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 08:16 PM
  #70
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
what point ?

oh! you mean trying to prove me wrong with info (you posted) that shows I'm not ?

really, buddah, you seem like a smart kid and all, but if there's one suggestion I can make... if you ever see a job post that requires debating and argumentation, do yourself a favor and dont apply.

cause really, you posted a date (1964), and to prove your point, almost all the info you provided talks about 1960 at most...
It is amazing that you can't just concede something when it doesn't go your way, this is your original quote:

Quote:
baby boomers are +/- 60 years old, born shortly after WW2 for the most part.
I then provided evidence that the statement, particularly the bold, is 100% false.

The actual subjective dates are completely irrelevant. The fact that I used one (from a credible source no less) has no bearing on anything. I used one source that said 64, there are other sources that said 60, there are others that said 62...ect.

The fact of the matter is the Baby Boomer generation came within anywhere from 15-20 years after WWII, not what you claimed to be "shortly after."

You are in the Baby Boomer demographic, sorry bud. It's possible that you miss it by a couple years, but who cares? Makes no difference. When were you born? 1967?

Quote:
it's like when you talk about free tuition (or freeze at worst), come on man, you're one of the living proof (assuming you dont lie) one can go to school and work while having a rent to pay and all AND manage not to have astronomical debt...

seriously, you have zero credibility on this buddah.
This goes back to using silly personal anecdotes to make an argument that fits over a gigantic population of people. It is a horrible way of making an argument.

Not all situations are the same. I spent literally no time doing homework, got crappy grades because I worked 30-40 hours a week part-time during high school. I didn't go to post-secondary education for two years after I graduated high school. I attended a community college and lived at home until I was 22. My college was a whopping 5 minute walk from home, which prevented me from ever having to buy a car in my life. Not everyone is able to do this for many reasons (this list is not exhaustive):

1) Do not live close to a college or post-secondary institution.
2) Cannot feasibly live at home until they are 22.
3) Can't work the type of jobs I was working to make enough money to offset education costs.
4) Can't work as much as I did during high school.
5) Don't have access to bursaries like I am.

Not to sound arrogant or anything; but I also think I have a lot more maturity than your average person at whatever respective age I was at at the time. I had a plan, I saved up and I made it work because of certain advantages I had in my life.

However, I don't expect everyone to have these advantages, especially when we are talking about 200K students here.

But for some reason this makes me lose credibility, because I don't adhere to the "well if I can do it, you can too!" camp?

guest1467 is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 09:31 PM
  #71
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
It is amazing that you can't just concede something when it doesn't go your way, this is your original quote:



I then provided evidence that the statement, particularly the bold, is 100% false.

The actual subjective dates are completely irrelevant. The fact that I used one (from a credible source no less) has no bearing on anything. I used one source that said 64, there are other sources that said 60, there are others that said 62...ect.

The fact of the matter is the Baby Boomer generation came within anywhere from 15-20 years after WWII, not what you claimed to be "shortly after."

You are in the Baby Boomer demographic, sorry bud. It's possible that you miss it by a couple years, but who cares? Makes no difference. When were you born? 1967?



This goes back to using silly personal anecdotes to make an argument that fits over a gigantic population of people. It is a horrible way of making an argument.

Not all situations are the same. I spent literally no time doing homework, got crappy grades because I worked 30-40 hours a week part-time during high school. I didn't go to post-secondary education for two years after I graduated high school. I attended a community college and lived at home until I was 22. My college was a whopping 5 minute walk from home, which prevented me from ever having to buy a car in my life. Not everyone is able to do this for many reasons (this list is not exhaustive):

1) Do not live close to a college or post-secondary institution.
2) Cannot feasibly live at home until they are 22.
3) Can't work the type of jobs I was working to make enough money to offset education costs.
4) Can't work as much as I did during high school.
5) Don't have access to bursaries like I am.

Not to sound arrogant or anything; but I also think I have a lot more maturity than your average person at whatever respective age I was at at the time. I had a plan, I saved up and I made it work because of certain advantages I had in my life.

However, I don't expect everyone to have these advantages, especially when we are talking about 200K students here.

But for some reason this makes me lose credibility, because I don't adhere to the "well if I can do it, you can too!" camp?

Considering you have no clue how old I am, sorry Bud...


Speaking of missing the point completely...


Nope, you lose credibility when you cant back up YOUR original statement, like in the case of the babyboom (wich was 64, not the 60s or early 60s, you were specific on this)... for some reasons, dates arent important anymore, theyre irrelevant... now it's a few years more (or less) who cares ? Well, You made sure to provide links to dates no one care about though...

You think I'm wrong and prove it with a statement backed up by info showing your statement is wrong ? is that how it works in your head ?

(Hey! one country in the world had his last a little longer, Woopdidoo!)

you should have read this part though : A baby boom is any period marked by a greatly increased birth rate

Nope, you're not arrogant, you're special, what you've accomplished so far in life only a select few, the elite, can think of doing it...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 10:19 PM
  #72
Boardish
Registered User
 
Boardish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,158
vCash: 500
Lots of respect for buddah, I don't know how you can keep your calm and waste your time with baby boomer ECWHSWI.

Boardish is offline  
Old
03-23-2012, 11:01 PM
  #73
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boardish View Post
Lots of respect for buddah, I don't know how you can keep your calm and waste your time with baby boomer ECWHSWI.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
03-24-2012, 12:05 PM
  #74
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
"Canceling the semester is out of question" - Line Beauchamp

http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/educ...-dit-beauchamp

RonFournier is offline  
Old
03-24-2012, 12:34 PM
  #75
Turtleneck Plek
Real Life
 
Turtleneck Plek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,093
vCash: 500
Well, sorry for making this a thread about baby boomers. Was far from my intention.

Turtleneck Plek is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.