HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Injured Players Thread (3/6: Staal Out Indefinitely; Not Career Threatening)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2013, 01:15 AM
  #901
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
If you want to promote hockey safety, then go volunteer at your rink teaching kids safety or something.

Complaining about pros aren't wearing visors on an internet message board isn't going to accomplish anything.

Hockey Team is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:16 AM
  #902
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
You cant prevent everything. Players have conceded comfort for safety. But you haved to draw the line at some point and allow the players some autonomy.

The only person who should be mad right now is Staal, and I bet is isnt nearly half as mad as the people on here crying for safety.
No you can't prevent everything. But you can deter, limit, reduce.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:19 AM
  #903
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
No body called the players ignorant.
You called the argument that says they should be allowed to decide for themselves ignorant. What's the difference?

Quote:
The CHL has mandated them. The NCAA has a mandate on full masks/shields. The AHL mandates visors. The ECHL mandates visors.

So, every level of Canadian and American minor pro and junior levels ALL require visors. They're all ignorant?
No one said those leagues are ignorant. The NHL chooses not to mandate the same thing those leagues do. Why does either side have to be ignorant?

The NHL can do what it wants and those other leagues can do what they want.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:19 AM
  #904
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Supersonic seems to have this attitude, where he's pissed off players don't care enough about their own safety because it might deny him the opportunity to watch them play.

Gimmie a break, if a guy gets a career ending injury because he didn't want to wear some extra safety gear, I have about a million other things in life to worry about that take priority over being pissed off I can't see a guy play anymore.

Hockey Team is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:22 AM
  #905
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,177
vCash: 476
Schmidt, I am a goalie in a league in Buffalo and actually I take time when youths come with their coach to be effective and strong while taking safety precautions. I find it funy that you assume I don't play. I've seen many bad injuries; me suffering three head injuries, for one. I also am baffled that you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying the players are bad for not using visors or whatever. Give me the factual evidence that there would only be a negligible rise in player safety as well please.

Silence Of The Plams is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:24 AM
  #906
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
If you want to promote hockey safety, then go volunteer at your rink teaching kids safety or something.

Complaining about pros aren't wearing visors on an internet message board isn't going to accomplish anything.
Talking about the issue on an open public forum won't do anything?

So why do you post on the same internet message board. It seems incredibly silly to attempt to knock down one poster while doing the exact same thing in the process.

The mentality is the exact reason why nothing has changed regarding player safety in the NHL in years.

Eventually the visor will be mandatory. As I posted above, a link, ALL levels below the NHL have already adopted mandatory facial protection rules. Players grow up with it.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:27 AM
  #907
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
No you can't prevent everything. But you can deter, limit, reduce.
You could limit cirrhosis by banning liquor, but that would be an overbroad approach for something that is a relatively minor problem. For those who it afflicts, it's horrible, but the rest of us shouldn't have to be evenly minorly inconvenienced in the name of a safety measure to prevent something so rare.

Clearly the situations aren't "equivalent" but my point is, I am not convinced, and the NHL isn't either, that the prevalence of eye injuries is so bad that they have to step in and do something.

It's completely different from a safety issue like concussions, which have a much higher occurence rate. That is something that they should actually be doing something about.

The infrequency with which these eye injuries occur just doesn't make the argument compelling.

That being said, if I played hockey, I would definitely wear a visor. I don't think my game would be negatively effected enough (or at all) to outweigh the safety increase of wearing one.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:27 AM
  #908
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
You called the argument that says they should be allowed to decide for themselves ignorant. What's the difference?



No one said those leagues are ignorant. The NHL chooses not to mandate the same thing those leagues do. Why does either side have to be ignorant?

The NHL can do what it wants and those other leagues can do what they want.
Well there's a reason why the AHL and ECHL have done it.

They're affiliated with the NHL.

The NHL tests things in the field in those leagues.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:27 AM
  #909
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Are you going to brag about drinking and driving too? I think saying "ignorance" for a guy bragging about putting lives at risk is a little too soft. Do you want to kill some kid before you take this **** seriously? Disgusting.
It's not bragging. It wasn't even the point of what I was trying to highlight.

I voice-text, by the way, if that makes anyone here feel any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Gee that visor sure is prohibiting Stamkos from scoring more then 60 goals on a season. Someone should tell him to remove the visor, he might score 90!
And Gretzky has more points than anyone and he didn't wear a visor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
From the league's perspective, I'd agree.

Not the same as the concussion issue, where players left and right are getting their brains scrambled. You couldn't do away with the helmet for that reason.

Pucks to the eye happen how often? Once every couple years? A career ending eye injury like Brian Berard's happens once in a generation? Players suffering career ending injuries to things that happen off the ice is probably more prevalent, even.

The argument that it is a pressing safety issue is unconvincing. The only possible way it would make sense if there was literally no reason whatsoever not to wear one. If you could slap a visor on every player in the league, and there would be no difference in performance whatsoever, then sure.... why not? If it has no other effect, of course you'd prefer safety.

But if the players aren't comfortable wearing them, and the safety benefit only makes you 0.000000000001% more safe, then it's needless worrying.

Guess what, if you play hockey, there will occasionally be a freak injury that seriously hurts someone. The only way to 100% prevent that reality is to fundamentally change the way the game is played, which I'm not interested in doing. And every player who signs up to play the game and then chooses to do so without a visor understands and accepts that reality. Nothing wrong with that any more than any of the day to day minorly risky things us humans do every day, like jaywalk or drink alcohol or whatever.

But if the league wants to water down their product my mandating that, putting everyone on the same level, fine. It's their call.

Until they make that call, it's the individual players' decision.
It's a shame, but this is the absolute truth. Hockey is a violent, physical sport. Injuries are unavoidable. Unless you make drastic changes for the sake of players safety, it won't change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
If you want to promote hockey safety, then go volunteer at your rink teaching kids safety or something.

Complaining about pros aren't wearing visors on an internet message board isn't going to accomplish anything.
Nope. It's not. But it will stress out some of our Mods here

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:29 AM
  #910
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Supersonic seems to have this attitude, where he's pissed off players don't care enough about their own safety because it might deny him the opportunity to watch them play.

Gimmie a break, if a guy gets a career ending injury because he didn't want to wear some extra safety gear, I have about a million other things in life to worry about that take priority over being pissed off I can't see a guy play anymore.
I'm pissed off? I wish I knew!

Yup! You got me! I have nothing else to do!

You have SO much to do that your arguing here...not too convincing on your part.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:30 AM
  #911
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 46,718
vCash: 50
From here on out, lets avoid using this

I seriously can't find a single positive situation for that to be used.

__________________
"New day, new hope. Richards Buyout 2014". -Ail
Bob Richards is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:30 AM
  #912
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Talking about the issue on an open public forum won't do anything?

So why do you post on the same internet message board. It seems incredibly silly to attempt to knock down one poster while doing the exact same thing in the process.

The mentality is the exact reason why nothing has changed regarding player safety in the NHL in years.

Eventually the visor will be mandatory. As I posted above, a link, ALL levels below the NHL have already adopted mandatory facial protection rules. Players grow up with it.
Because maybe I can get you to see the logical thing, which is you have no business trying to say what NHLers can and can't do.

More and more players do wear visors since that's what they're used to playing with. Maybe it will become mandatory at some point, but not in the near future.

Hockey Team is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:33 AM
  #913
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Because maybe I can get you to see the logical thing, which is you have no business trying to say what NHLers can and can't do.

More and more players do wear visors since that's what they're used to playing with. Maybe it will become mandatory at some point, but not in the near future.
I don't have any business...

But you sure do.

That's not "logic". That's disagreement.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:34 AM
  #914
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
Schmidt, I am a goalie in a league in Buffalo and actually I take time when youths come with their coach to be effective and strong while taking safety precautions. I find it funy that you assume I don't play. I've seen many bad injuries; me suffering three head injuries, for one. I also am baffled that you're trying to make it sound like I'm saying the players are bad for not using visors or whatever.
I don't think prior to right now I had even once addressed anything you've said in this thread so far. All my posts have been in response to Supersonic monkey, I haven't quoted you once. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Quote:
Give me the factual evidence that there would only be a negligible rise in player safety as well please.
No; I'm not the one who wants to change the status quo. If you want the league to change it's policies, you have the burden of demonstrating the case as to why it makes sense.

You give me factual evidence that there is a substantial decrease in NHL player safety without them.

And citing a small handful of NHL players who have suffered face injuries in a decade is not substantial.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:35 AM
  #915
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Well there's a reason why the AHL and ECHL have done it.

They're affiliated with the NHL.

The NHL tests things in the field in those leagues.
Well there's also a reason the NHL hasn't done it in their own league, then.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:35 AM
  #916
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
I'll just leave it off with how it started.

If he's wearing a visor, he doesn't miss half the 11-12 season, or get a puck in the eye.

Visors don't do anything though!

OK. I'll keep wearing mine and I'll keep avoiding injuries.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:35 AM
  #917
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,177
vCash: 476
You want facts? There have been the injuries without them. There could be a reduction with the protective piece. Educated hypothesis. Also Schmidt, Re read posts on the last page. You do in fact mention my name and speak to me.

Silence Of The Plams is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:37 AM
  #918
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I don't have any business...

But you sure do.

That's not "logic". That's disagreement.
Whoa there.

Let's not forget who started calling other people ignorant for saying players shouldn't be forced to wear visors.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:37 AM
  #919
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Well there's also a reason the NHL hasn't done it in their own league, then.
Yes.

That's allowing the inmates to run the asylum. That's the reason.

Imagine where the NFL would be right now if they operated the same way.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:38 AM
  #920
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Supersonic seems to have this attitude, where he's pissed off players don't care enough about their own safety because it might deny him the opportunity to watch them play.
I think he's upset because of Staal's importance to this team. If Bickel took that puck in his eye, I can all but guarantee he wouldn't be pounding his fist on the brick wall demanding changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I'm pissed off? I wish I knew!

Yup! You got me! I have nothing else to do!

You have SO much to do that your arguing here...not too convincing on your part.
You clearly are upset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Richards View Post
From here on out, lets avoid using this

I seriously can't find a single positive situation for that to be used.


I can't either. But I love it. I'll save it for the Trade-Forum here on out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Because maybe I can get you to see the logical thing, which is you have no business trying to say what NHLers can and can't do.

More and more players do wear visors since that's what they're used to playing with. Maybe it will become mandatory at some point, but not in the near future.
There's going to be a lot of pushback if that's proposed.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:40 AM
  #921
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
I think the players in the league know best. They play at the NHL level. They have access to whatever equipment they want. They have doctors with them at all times. If a player doesn't wear a visor, it's their choice. And there's probably a pretty damn good reason for it.
This is not an argument you want to follow to its logical conclusion. This kind of choice is the slippery slope that leads to athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs and other things that have a high risk factor but potential benefit in terms of on-ice performance.

The "damn good reason" that athletes choose not to wear optional protective gear, such as visors, is because of the perception (real or imagined) that they perform better without it. I think we can both agree that the athletes likely have very good advice in terms of understanding the risks involved and the potential benefits of wearing this gear. If they choose not to, I think we can also likely agree that they do so, almost without a doubt, because they feel they perform better on the ice without said gear. Athletes look for advantages they can exploit, including in terms of their gear.

However, if each athlete was required to wear the protective gear, no one would be at a disadvantage by wearing it. Everyone would receive the benefits of the gear, and everyone would be subject to the drawbacks.

That is why people make the argument that the gear should be mandatory. Every player that chooses to wear the gear today knowingly gives up some perceived degree of performance as compared to his peers. That perceived disadvantage would disappear if -every- player had to wear the gear. But I would wager my life savings that we will never see a majority of players wearing visors until they become mandatory. No one wants to give up the advantage, because relatively few people lose eyes/take permanent injuries. Thus the relative risk is low, even if the potential consequences are devastating.

Khelvan is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:40 AM
  #922
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Whoa there.

Let's not forget who started calling other people ignorant for saying players shouldn't be forced to wear visors.
Yes I have the opinion that players need to have mandates to protect themselves from themselves.

That's why 5 game suspensions for acts like Kaleta's won't stop anything. Losing a year's salary and not being allowed to play for a year would probably do the trick.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:40 AM
  #923
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
Craig Mactavish thinks otherwise. He was clearly going for "cool" and "tough guy".



I ****ing hate visors, personally. I hate them when I play paintball. I hate them when I test my buddies helmets. And I know for a fact that a lot of hockey players feel the same way. It's a comfort thing.

I sometimes drive without my seatbelt. I sometimes text and drive to. Regardless, driving with my seatbelt on and my complete attention is still dangerous. Do you propose we all drive tanks that can't exceed 30MPH, because they're safe?

I saw a hockey player knocked out once during a fight. Let's ban hockey.

I also saw a players skate slice human flesh. Let's enforce duller skates.

Relax dude.. **** happens. Hagelin wears a visor. If Staal had an arched visor like Hagelin's, it wouldn't have made any difference. Sticks rise up. Pucks typically do to. Visors do help limit facial injuries, but they don't prevent them completely.
I usually don't bother with posts like this, because we all know that this is going to turn into a flame war, but I'll take the bait with this one.

I understand the notion that you believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions. I really do. But you have to understand that there is gray area when you are dealing with situations that affect other people, beyond just the person involved.

I think it was during hurricane Sandy when Mayor Bloomberg said something that struck a chord with me. I don't know if any towns in NY/NJ actually decided that they would give tickets to people who were caught driving in the storm, but I know the idea was talked about and bounced around on talk shows, etc. And it set off a ****show. People were *****ing and moaning about how it was ridiculous, how they have to right to do whatever they want during the hurricane and if something bad happened to them, they would accept responsibility. They knew the consequences, and they should be allowed to make decisions on their own.

Well, Bloomberg put it well when he said that if you get stuck in the middle of the storm and are in significant danger, you're not just endangering your life, you're endangering the lives of all the people who have to put themselves in harms way to try and rescue you.

Maybe that's a bad example, but I think it kind of pertains to this. Obviously, Marc Staal isn't endangering other people's lives by not wearing a visor. But he is a multi-million dollar investment by James Dolan and the Rangers. By not wearing a visor, he is endangering that investment. So the freedom to say "it's my decision, I'll do what I want" no longer holds in its absolute sense. At the very least, a conversation about mandating or grandfathering visors is warranted, since bother James Dolan and Marc Staal have a vested interest in Marc Staal's health.

I have a similar opinion about neck guards as well, which probably also won't be too popular. Players say "I know the risk, I saw what happened to Malarchuk and Zednik, it's my decision". But at the end of the day, the NHL is a product that brings in billions of dollars in revenue. If a played gruesomely bleeds to death on the ice in front of 20,000 people in the stands and millions of people on TV...even if the player knew the risks and didn't care, that incident reflects badly on the product and the league. Some people would be turned off, some would stop going to games, and that would adversely affect revenue. So to protect the brand, the NHL has a right to have that conversation.

Again, I'm not saying that neck guards and visors should definitely be mandated (though that is my personal opinion). What I am saying is that you cannot be offended by the conversation. It's inherent to the relationship between players, the league, and the customers (the fans).


EDIT: With regards to the bolded part. Again, you understand the risks of what you're doing, so you feel like you can make an educated decision and make your own choice. Sadly for you, my point still holds here.

Sorry to break it to you, but I'm not in favor of a texting-and-driving ban because I'm worried about your health. Frankly, nobody on here cares if you crash into a tree and kill yourself. But what we do care about is that your reckless behavior is endangering other people. So texting-and-driving is not solely your decision to make (in terms of its legality).

And yes, you're right. There are other reckless driving habits that are still legal. So where do we draw the line? Why is texting and driving banned, but eating and driving (in most places) isn't? That's a good question, and one that I don't have an answer to. But my point is that you, personally, cannot decide where to draw that line for yourself. And you cannot be offended when public officials (in this case) decide to have that discussion (which you are a part of). You can disagree with the law, you can use your rights as a (I presume) citizen to try and change the law, but you also can be chastised and punished for breaking the law.

So if a player says "It's my decision, I know the risks, I can do what I want". My response is, no, that's not how it works. There are other entities that have a vested interest in that decision. You are one of those entities, and you can share your opinions in that discussion and try and reach a resolution. But you cannot ignore the other parties involved.


EDIT 2: Again, I don't want you to think I'm preaching some anti-freedom totalitarian doctrine here. I believe in personal freedom. But I also believe that personal freedom has its limits when it comes to areas that affect the greater public. There is a balance. Where that balance is, that's the debate that I'm willing to have. But to categorically say that "I can make my own decisions, I know the consequences" doesn't quite fly.


Last edited by mrhockey193195: 03-06-2013 at 02:04 AM.
mrhockey193195 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:41 AM
  #924
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
You want facts? There have been the injuries without them. There could be a reduction with the protective piece. Educated hypothesis.
I asked for factual evidence that there is a "substantial decrease" in player safety by not wearing them.

I take it from your response that you aren't going to even attempt to gather any kind of numbers to sell your argument.

Suffice to say, the NHL will never change their policy -- nor should they -- because someone alleges that "there have been injuries without them." The NHL hasn't done anything about concussions when that issue is rampant and unarguably poses a "subtantial safety issue."

The visor issue is so much more minor. Until someone presents a legitimate argument that there is a "substantial decrease in safety" without them, I wouldn't even begin to consider implementing such a policy, no matter how many times someone points to isolated incidents of tragedy. Hopefully the NHL won't either.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:43 AM
  #925
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhockey193195 View Post
Obviously, Marc Staal isn't endangering other people's lives by not wearing a visor. But he is a multi-million dollar investment by James Dolan and the Rangers. By not wearing a visor, he is endangering that investment. So the freedom to say "it's my decision, I'll do what I want" no longer holds in its absolute sense. At the very least, a conversation about mandating or grandfathering visors is warranted.
I think everyone would agree that the league has every right to mandate visors if they want to.

I just don't see a compelling reason for the league to do so. Apparently I am "ignorant."

mschmidt64 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 10:00 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.