|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blackhart217 wrote: | Pre Achilles Kobe and Paul and Howard and IMO Phil for one last hurrah if no Veto prob gets Kobe # 6, even if Howard still left afterwards (would have had 2 shots at it without D'Antoni), Lakers would have been competitive with prime Paul and post-prime Kobe.
But Jim's timeline plus Mosgov/Deng was their downfall. I wouldn't have minded if Mitch got 1 more year if no Mos/Deng but it was just too brutal. |
Howard and Pau were never going to work unless one comes off the bench.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inverse
Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2014
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember an ESPN analyst saying the CP3 veto would set back the Lakers 10 years. At the time I thought yeah right...
_________________
He's my GOAT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperboyReformed wrote: | | Moses wrote: | It definitely had an impact. When you look back at that moment, it could be argued that it affected so much more
1. CP3 would've saved Kobe's legs, maybe meaning he never gets his achilles injury
2. Would've got something for Pau instead of nothing
3. Probably still would've got Dwight, who arguably wouldn't have left
4. Wouldn't have had to give up those picks for Nash
5. Team would've remained in contention, and arguably would be a bigger draw for free agents over last couple of years.
For me, this was the moment where I lost a little bit of love for the game, it turned my perception of how the league is run, I just think it was morally wrong and a huge conflict of interest, I still can't understand how the league allowed that to happen. For me, that tarnished Sterns reputation beyond repair.
I don't think this is the single reason we are where we are, there were a lot of questionable moves by the team following that, but there is no denying the veto moment as something that had a massive impact. |
yup. furthermore, the trajectories of golden state and lebron would have been altered, and hence miami and the cavs. Someone else would've gotten the young guys we now have. THe Spurs likely would have been drastically altered with some of the aldridge, west signings. Lakers may have won another ring or two...kobe with 6, so many things. Durant's move to GS may not happen. SO much. It was really an NBA altering situation that has sort of been ignored (for good reason) over the years. |
Keep in mind Chris would have been here only two years and then Kobe got hurt, effectively ending his career. So I'm not sure the overall NBA landscape would have changed anymore than it did by Chris going to the Clippers. But at least we would have had a superstar to keep our franchise from totally collapsing. Whether it would have had an impact on the Heat, Spurs and Warriors fortunes is anyone's guess -- that's too speculative for me to run with, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.K.
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Jul 2003
Posts: 29713
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being completely inept was the reason they got fired. Stern had nothing to do with it.
I've led turnarounds of 4 failing organizations myself. I don't know all the details in the Lakers org, of course, but I would have fired Jim 2 or 3 years ago. And Mitch would have been gone at the same time, or for sure after the LaMarcus Aldridge fiasco. I mean, really? You're so inept you have to ask for a do over?
There were a lot of other things, but that kind of stands out as a colossal monument of ineptness
_________________
LBJ + AD = More rings
Never argue with a fool - listeners can't tell you apart
Wilt's unstoppable fadeaway: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O9MgNfcGJA
NPZ's Magic Johnson mix: www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qbo0WqvOI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
I get point number 2 but he was just basically a substitute owner. There was no reason for him to act as an owner against the actions of his front office when the effects were not going to affect his team because in reality he has no team. Soon the team would be sold and it really does not affect him at all. It would be like Bernie bickerstaff taking over as interim head coach telling the fo not to trade for boogie cousins when in reality his opinion doesn't matter because everyone knows he's going to be replaced soon. Why would u meddle in something that ultimately won't have anything to do with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blackhart217
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Blackhart217 wrote: | Pre Achilles Kobe and Paul and Howard and IMO Phil for one last hurrah if no Veto prob gets Kobe # 6, even if Howard still left afterwards (would have had 2 shots at it without D'Antoni), Lakers would have been competitive with prime Paul and post-prime Kobe.
But Jim's timeline plus Mosgov/Deng was their downfall. I wouldn't have minded if Mitch got 1 more year if no Mos/Deng but it was just too brutal. |
Howard and Pau were never going to work unless one comes off the bench. |
Wasn't Pau going to Houston pre veto? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blackhart217
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
This is a big reason why I'll always be anti-Lebron/Gilbert/Cavs and Cuban
(only because Dallas was playing Lebron in 2011 and Dallas losing to D-Whistle in 06 and wanted to see Dirk get payback did I root for the Mavs). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
Nah. At the end of the day, he had a giant conflict-of-interest. The truth is we'll never know whether it was #1 or #2. Both possibilities exist. And therefore, Stern should have removed himself, like he claimed he would, so that the conflict-of-interest isn't there. PJax called it a year in advance.
Lakers fans are more than justified in criticizing Stern. You get an impartial party (say, the GM?) to make the decision. If he didn't think Demps was qualified, he should have fired him beforehand and put someone he thought was qualified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
999
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 20266
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blackhart217 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
This is a big reason why I'll always be anti-Lebron/Gilbert/Cavs and Cuban
(only because Dallas was playing Lebron in 2011 and Dallas losing to D-Whistle in 06 and wanted to see Dirk get payback did I root for the Mavs). |
Okay to root for the mavs in 2011. It was before Cuban colors came out and before the veto
Now.. Not so much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
Nah. At the end of the day, he had a giant conflict-of-interest. The truth is we'll never know whether it was #1 or #2. Both possibilities exist. And therefore, Stern should have removed himself, like he claimed he would, so that the conflict-of-interest isn't there. PJax called it a year in advance.
Lakers fans are more than justified in criticizing Stern. You get an impartial party (say, the GM?) to make the decision. If he didn't think Demps was qualified, he should have fired him beforehand and put someone he thought was qualified. |
I agree with you. Stern's big mistakes were (1) making it seem like the GM did have unilateral authority to make a deal and (2) not communicating he was vetoing the deal as the owner, not the commissioner.
It was a screwed up situation. All sorts of conflicts of interests since, in essence, every owners owned part of the Hornets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tkLAKERS
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Nov 2010
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not by itself, but F Stern anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moses
Star Player
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 8269
Location: London
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | tox wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
There are two views of Stern's actions:
(1) He caved into some owners who didn't want the Lakers to get all the riches.
(2) He was acting in his capacity as an owner of the team, not the commissioner, and simply vetoed a trade that his GM made which he didn't like. And you can make a case the Hornets got a better deal as a result.
Lakers fans, as you might expect, tend to believe in #1 |
Nah. At the end of the day, he had a giant conflict-of-interest. The truth is we'll never know whether it was #1 or #2. Both possibilities exist. And therefore, Stern should have removed himself, like he claimed he would, so that the conflict-of-interest isn't there. PJax called it a year in advance.
Lakers fans are more than justified in criticizing Stern. You get an impartial party (say, the GM?) to make the decision. If he didn't think Demps was qualified, he should have fired him beforehand and put someone he thought was qualified. |
I agree with you. Stern's big mistakes were (1) making it seem like the GM did have unilateral authority to make a deal and (2) not communicating he was vetoing the deal as the owner, not the commissioner.
It was a screwed up situation. All sorts of conflicts of interests since, in essence, every owners owned part of the Hornets. |
What he should've done is set someone up to run the team independently and not put himself in a position where there could be any conflict of interest. If you are operating as head of the team you have an interest in the outcome of a potential trade, so how can you possibly try to say that you're also being impartial as the commissioner?
_________________
Lakers, Chargers, Dodgers, Arsenal FC.
Mamba Forever
The Marathon Continues
Still I Rise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wino
Star Player
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 9674
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's possible, Stern was and still is a dick.
That being said, one has to wonder if even Stern and the NBA FO doesn't have something against Jim Buss.
I still say that a lot of talking went on around the league about Jim Buss and the players didn't like him, the owners didn't like him and I suspect Stern and even Silver didn't like him.
Seems like everyone was against him and they were ALL willing to shut down the Lakers over him. It blows my mind but dang, it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, must be a duck.
It will be interesting to see if some breaks start going our way. If they do, I will find myself wondering even more, if the whole NBA world had it in for Jim Buss.
_________________
Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wino
Star Player
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 9674
Location: San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers_Jester wrote: | | Probably. What stern did messed us up man from a fo pov. And for what reason? Super teams are not any less prevalent now than they were then. Because some whiney cry babies who couldn't stand the lakers winning? And who has the super team now? Same whiney ass owner who was complaining loudest about anti super team etc. Pathetic |
It is totally pathetic and why I will always remember Stern with hate in my heart. Screw that dude forever!
If he was in my house, I would kick him out.
_________________
Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E_Wulf420
Star Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2014
Posts: 1075
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Veto trade > Achilles > Present
If it wasn't for that trade, kobe never tears his Achilles and he would STILL be playing right now averaging about 20-23 points alongside CP3. It's a shame that deal never went through.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| E_Wulf420 wrote: | Veto trade > Achilles > Present
If it wasn't for that trade, kobe never tears his Achilles and he would STILL be playing right now averaging about 20-23 points alongside CP3. It's a shame that deal never went through. |
this chain of thoughts is the one i try not to think about the most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wino wrote: | It's possible, Stern was and still is (bleep).
That being said, one has to wonder if even Stern and the NBA FO doesn't have something against Jim Buss.
I still say that a lot of talking went on around the league about Jim Buss and the players didn't like him, the owners didn't like him and I suspect Stern and even Silver didn't like him.
Seems like everyone was against him and they were ALL willing to shut down the Lakers over him. It blows my mind but dang, it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, must be a duck.
It will be interesting to see if some breaks start going our way. If they do, I will find myself wondering even more, if the whole NBA world had it in for Jim Buss. |
yea, i've never been able to make sense of this either. A lot of the rest makes sense if you take your head out of your A and think about it, but this part is always a mystery. What the owners, league, etc really had in mind is a big mystery with that. i laugh at what av wrote, doesn't make sense at all.
what's weird is that Jerry Buss during the CBA before the veto was vocally in favor of parity, which has always seemed strange to me. WHy would he be? He'd have to be a saint of a nice guy to really be for it, and he could be, but it's weird. Because there was only one team dominating, the Lakers, so parity would have meant ( and has meant, as we can see now) in the destruction of ALL the magnificent Laker momentum. SO I never understood that.
And the Jim Buss thing...people here talk like they know everything, they dont know anything. The Lakers FO since the jack haley incident is tight lipped about EVERYTHING. So did the owners really dislike Jim that much? Or maybe they saw it as an opportunity to dismantle the Lakers for their own benefit, which would make much much more sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8330
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The trade veto was the proverbial lighting of the stick of dynamite. It was more symbolic than anything though, because Jim and Mitch should've had a plan B, as Stumpy25 mentioned earlier. I've gone on record as saying here that they should've traded Bynum for Iguodala instead, and there's probably several other things they could've done as well.
Jim doesn't have the vision or the moxie that his dad had. To be a successful executive or leader of a great org, you need both, and your ego needs to be healthy. He could've recovered from the veto if he were competent. Instead, it was the first in a long string of missteps.
To me, the CP3 veto had the same effect on us that the death of Len Bias had on the Celtics. At least now we may have the right leadership in the FO.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | The trade veto was the proverbial lighting of the stick of dynamite. It was more symbolic than anything though, because Jim and Mitch should've had a plan B, as Stumpy25 mentioned earlier. I've gone on record as saying here that they should've traded Bynum for Iguodala instead, and there's probably several other things they could've done as well.
Jim doesn't have the vision or the moxie that his dad had. To be a successful executive or leader of a great org, you need both, and your ego needs to be healthy. He could've recovered from the veto if he were competent. Instead, it was the first in a long string of missteps.
To me, the CP3 veto had the same effect on us that the death of Len Bias had on the Celtics. At least now we may have the right leadership in the FO. |
i get what you're saying, but i don't know if it's a fair thing to say. Should've had a plan B? really? you're saying mitch and jim should have had a plan B somewhat equal to a cp3/dwight type trade situation? cmon, that's expecting a lot. Iggy wouldn't do jack for us compared to what cp3 was going to do. this was way different than len bias, a player who died of natural causes, and the celtics are not the lakers, not even close. the lakers between 1980-2010, basically the Jerry Buss years...there is no equal in modern American sports history, and it's not close.
and again, what do we know about jim's vision or anything with the family? nothing. we have some people writing articles and pretending to know, or having strong opinions, but there really isn't much actual info. i mean, everyone knows how tight lipped the lakers are, yet everyone also acts like they know what jim, mitch, jeanie, etc. are thinking and doing. cant be both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8330
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperboyReformed wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | The trade veto was the proverbial lighting of the stick of dynamite. It was more symbolic than anything though, because Jim and Mitch should've had a plan B, as Stumpy25 mentioned earlier. I've gone on record as saying here that they should've traded Bynum for Iguodala instead, and there's probably several other things they could've done as well.
Jim doesn't have the vision or the moxie that his dad had. To be a successful executive or leader of a great org, you need both, and your ego needs to be healthy. He could've recovered from the veto if he were competent. Instead, it was the first in a long string of missteps.
To me, the CP3 veto had the same effect on us that the death of Len Bias had on the Celtics. At least now we may have the right leadership in the FO. |
i get what you're saying, but i don't know if it's a fair thing to say. Should've had a plan B? really? you're saying mitch and jim should have had a plan B somewhat equal to a cp3/dwight type trade situation? cmon, that's expecting a lot. Iggy wouldn't do jack for us compared to what cp3 was going to do. this was way different than len bias, a player who died of natural causes, and the celtics are not the lakers, not even close. the lakers between 1980-2010, basically the Jerry Buss years...there is no equal in modern American sports history, and it's not close.
and again, what do we know about jim's vision or anything with the family? nothing. we have some people writing articles and pretending to know, or having strong opinions, but there really isn't much actual info. i mean, everyone knows how tight lipped the lakers are, yet everyone also acts like they know what jim, mitch, jeanie, etc. are thinking and doing. cant be both. |
You always should have a plan B, especially when your goals are as high as the Lakers' goals. Trades like the CP3 trade are extremely hard to pull off. They wanted to extend their window by replenishing their supporting cast so that they could get one more ring out of Kobe. After that came a series of bad decisions: hiring Mike Brown (actually right before the veto), hiring MDA instead of Phil, not handling free agency the right way, etc.
What Jimbo's defenders fail to mention is that he basically inherited a championship team once he became a major decision maker. Mitch pulled off the Gasol and Ariza trades, and once Ariza left they instantly signed Artest. Once that team was in need of replenishing was when Jim started showing his lack of ability.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ujah's Goat
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jun 2016
Posts: 1417
Location: Babylon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mods please lock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ujah's Goat wrote: | | Mods please lock. |
why?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeDunk wrote: | we would have had a potential lineup of :
Howard (Bynum trade)
D.West (free agent)
Metta
Kobe
CP3 (VETOed Trade)
I would think this could have made a major difference in the history of the franchise and NBA since 2011 |
anyone saying otherwise is just someone that was on the "fire jim" or "fire mitch" bandwagon. they never really gave serious thought to how much the nixed deal destroyed the lakers present back then and their future til now. People try to say well..so...that was years ago by now things should have changed. I ask. How so. No one ever has that answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
