RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,061
Posts: 5,431,824
Members: 24,925
Currently online: 626
Newest member: dracopticon

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 4 2013, 05:14 PM   #196
yenny
Captain
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Workbee wrote: View Post
This appears to be a transcript rather than a script. Do you know the source of this information? Particularly any of the non-dialogue annotations?
http://www.chakoteya.net/ That is the site that I've got it from. But they only have transcripts.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 05:39 PM   #197
yenny
Captain
 
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Starship class doesn't means first ship of it class. Class itself means type in this case.

Gene himself did the same thing with the Yorktown. He call the Yorktown a cruiser class.

http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_T...Trek_Pitch.pdf

If you go look at any ships plaque? They most of the time don't mention the ship class, only it type. But sometimes they don't even do that.
yenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 05:52 PM   #198
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I hope you don't mind, blssdwlf, if I modify your synopsis slightly.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
IIRC, the onscreen evidence for the class of the TOS/Movie Enterprises are:

TOS/Movie References:
"Starship Class" plaque that was on the TOS Enterprise bridge for Seasons 1-3.
"Enterprise Class" training simulator bridge in TWOK for the TWOK Enterprise.
"Heavy Cruiser" type of TOS Enterprise line drawing seen on bridge in TSFS.
"Constitution Class" schematic Scotty was looking at in TUC for the TUC Enterprise-A.

TNG references:
"Constitution Class Enterprise, Captain James T Kirk commanding" from "The Naked Now" showed the movie version Enterprise line drawing. I understand that in the new FX version of TNG they replaced it with a TOS Enterprise drawing.
"Constitution Class" from "Relics" used to describe the bridge simulation. Dedication plaque unreadable.

DS9 references:

"This was the first Enterprise. Constitution class." from "Trials and Tribbleations".

So at the time of TOS, she was a "Starship Class".

Then when rebuilt in TMP, she's her own "Enterprise Class".

And when replaced with a new/different ship, that ship came from the "Constitution Class". Her final disposition would be then "Constitution Class".

The characters in the future could then only refer to the last version which is the "Constitution Class" Enterprise-A under Captain James T. Kirk. To keep it simple they don't dive in and comment that for a while Kirk was an Admiral and the Enterprise was her own "Enterprise Class" and "Starship Class". It is possible that "Starship Class" and "Enterprise Class were sub-classes of the "Constitution Class". IMHO.
I think this is a pretty accurate breakdown of the facts as aired.

(I can't recall if Icheb mentioned the ship by class in "Q2" on Voyager, but I doubt it.)

To re-state, based on aired evidence:
  • If we consider only TOS, the original is Starship Class.*
  • If we consider TOS and the movies, she's Enterprise class, at least after she's refit... the A is then a Constitution (refit).
  • If we consider TNG and DS9, she was Constitution class in her original form, too. "Starship class" means something else, or is an error and should be ignored.
*I still think Bob's rationalization that "Starship Class" means "class of this starship's name" makes a degree of sense. Then, the only alteration would be that the Enterprise was the only member of her class all along, with other ships being Constitution class, including the Enterprise-A. It also fits nicely with the real-world CVN-65 Enterprise being a unique member of her own class which also happens to look (to a layman) a lot like another couple classes of aircraft carrier.

Then again, Scotty might've taken umbrage at Picard's "Constitution Class" remark if the original Enterprise was distinguished as a member of her own class... or he might have just been amused at the Captain's misunderstanding. Of course, he was drunk.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 06:25 PM   #199
B.J.
Rear Admiral
 
B.J.'s Avatar
 
Location: Huntsville, AL, USA
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

B.J. wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
@ yenny

YES, I do know very well that "Connie" is a nickname for the real USS Constellation (and the plane Gene Roddenberry had piloted!), that's what I'm permanently trying to tell my fellow BBS mates, but they just won't listen.
I know that all too well too (being an aerospace engineer and a bit of a space/aviation nut), but I also know that language evolves, and certain words can mean one thing to one group of people but something else to another. If I'm at the EAA fly-in at Oshkosh and someone mentions a "Connie", I know they're talking about the Lockheed Constellation. If I hear a Navy commander talk about *THE* Connie, he's referring to the USS Constellation. However, for the vast majority of Trekkies, "Connie" refers to the Constitution class, and I have no problem making the distinction or understanding that whatsoever.

And no, we are listening, we just disagree.
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
B.J. wrote: View Post
If I'm at the EAA fly-in at Oshkosh and someone mentions a "Connie", I know they're talking about the Lockheed Constellation. If I hear a Navy commander talk about *THE* Connie, he's referring to the USS Constellation. However, for the vast majority of Trekkies, "Connie" ...
...would logically have to refer to the USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
No. I've given my reasons, and logic has nothing to do with it. Rarely is there any logic in how language evolves, or how nicknames are used. And don't ever cut off my words like that again.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Yes, there was this school of thought in the early 1970's and IIRC in some of the Blish adaptations. Looks like we could have a BBS poll with multiple choice selections.

In general I find it outrageuosly weird or nerdy that there is talk about the Enterprise but a nickname is used that has absolutely nothing to do with it. At least "Enty", "Aunty" or "Ente" (German word for duck) would sound somewhat appropriate, IMHO. Or a cool sounding acronym like CCS (Constitution Class Starship), not too dissimilar from CVN (Cruiser Voler Nuclear).

And just imagine the reaction of aviatic buffs like Roddenberry and Jefferies if any fan would have ever told them "Guys, I really love your Connie design":

There is a country where they actually say "handy" for cell phone and "beamer" for a video front projector. If your reaction is the same as the one you'd get from Roddenberry and Jefferies for "Connie", I hope I've illustrated the issue.

Bob
Just remember, you're talking with other "aviatic buffs" here as well, like me. And I still disagree.
__________________
B.J. --- bj-o23.deviantart.com
B.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 08:51 PM   #200
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Mario de Monti wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You can try to deny onscreen material if you want, but for everyone else, the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701, was a Constitution-class starship from the day she was launched to the day she fell over the Genesis planet.
Please don´t speak for everyone else
I'm not, I'm just stating a fact.


It's been called a Constitution-class starship onscreen more than once. Seems like everyone else accepted it.
Robert Comsul wrote:
It's been a while since I saw such an example of circular logic.
There's nothing circular about it.

The only way to claim that the Enterprise isn't a Constitution-class starship is to ignore onscreen material that says she is and replace it with personal conjecture based on ignoring canon.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; September 4 2013 at 09:53 PM.
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 11:09 PM   #201
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

B.J. wrote: View Post
Just remember, you're talking with other "aviatic buffs" here as well, like me. And I still disagree.
No need to start making threats or bring in "the argument of authority" as heavy artillery. Okay, you still disagree, but I'm not exactly sure which parts you disagree with.

Or do you seriously want to suggest that a Pan American pilot who actually flew the Connie and an aviator who created the Enterprise in the early 1960's would have ever referred to the Starship Enterprise as "Connie"?

@ C.E. Evans

Rewatched the scene from "The Naked Now" with (UK) DVD subtitles the other night which read "The Starship Enterprise, commanded by Captain James T. Kirk". Apparently, the subtitle editor also had issues with Constitution Class, as the correct quote refers, indeed, to "Constitution Class" (NCC-1701-A?). Sorry 'bout that.

Yes, everyone else seems to accept it, but it is obvious there are other interpretations - and these are not without reason.

Where you are mislead, IMO, is to think that "personal conjecture" has anything to with it, it is a question of respect for the people that created Star Trek.

The dialogue from "Bread and Circuses" puts emphasis on the fact that "starships" are the top-of-the-line class of Federation vessels, hence "Starship Class". And according to Bob Justman and The Making of Star Trek apparently not just to "Starship Class" but to "Enterprise Starship Class".

Just because this has been constantly ignored doesn't make it vanish into thin air. It's a coherent and continous red thread that began in The Making of Star Trek, continued with the official TMP Blueprints ("new Enterprise Class") and finally saw a visual proof in the form of the "Enterprise Class" bridge simulator in ST II.

Apparently, this whole name class crazyness really started with TNG. For all I care they could have invented a Ukulele Class but for me that didn't overwrite what had been established before. I don't ignore canon, I just don't accept revisionism at the expense of the canon that came first, its original creators or any original artist for that matter.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; September 4 2013 at 11:19 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 11:25 PM   #202
Mantiscare
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Manticore
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

The original vision of Trek is no more valid than what came later (or else the Federation wouldn't exist in favor of United Earth). It has the benefit of being first, but we should also weigh the preponderance of evidence more highly than First! and as such, the Enterprise is a Constitution class starship.

I'm not sure how there is any other valid interpretation if you acknowledge everything in the 22nd and 24th centuries at all.
__________________
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants.
Mantiscare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 03:33 AM   #203
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

I'm more used to "Connie" as Constitution than Constellation - and Sunday was my first day as a civilian in 20 years!
OTOH, for me, there's TOS. then there's the bastard cousin TNG/DS9, then there's the fading VGR, and everything else is in a different universe.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 03:35 AM   #204
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
@ C.E. Evans

Rewatched the scene from "The Naked Now" with (UK) DVD subtitles the other night which read "The Starship Enterprise, commanded by Captain James T. Kirk". Apparently, the subtitle editor also had issues with Constitution Class, as the correct quote refers, indeed, to "Constitution Class" (NCC-1701-A?). Sorry 'bout that.

Yes, everyone else seems to accept it, but it is obvious there are other interpretations - and these are not without reason.

Where you are mislead, IMO, is to think that "personal conjecture" has anything to with it, it is a question of respect for the people that created Star Trek.
Actually, that's where you're mislead. Star Trek is the result of many different creators, each one fleshing out its universe as it goes along. It's always been a collaborative and steadily unfolding effort, with sometimes later material supplanting earlier material (at times, by the same creators).

It's been officially established that the original Enterprise, NCC-1701, was a Constitution-class starship. She may not have been referred to as such in actual dialogue in TOS, but even as far back as 1966's "Space Seed," that was the name that was ultimately given for her design and it was finally confirmed in dialogue a couple of decades later in both TNG and DS9.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 10:53 AM   #205
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's always been a collaborative and steadily unfolding effort, with sometimes later material supplanting earlier material (at times, by the same creators).
Except that the creator of the Enterprise, Walter Matt Jefferies, stated in the early 2000's in books and interviews (BBC-online) the same as in his original pre-production sketch with the text annotations: That the TOS Enterprise was "the first bird" and the "first in the [17th] series".

As the courteous gentleman he was, I'm confident he didn't want to offend anyone believing in "Constitution Class". Therefore he just stated as it was, leaving it to us to draw the proper conclusions from it - or not.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's been officially established that the original Enterprise, NCC-1701, was a Constitution-class starship. She may not have been referred to as such in actual dialogue in TOS, but even as far back as 1966's "Space Seed," that was the name that was ultimately given for her design and it was finally confirmed in dialogue a couple of decades later in both TNG and DS9.
The Making of Star Trek established the original NCC-1701 to be an "Enterprise-class starship". Since this is the account of Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry/Stephen Whitfield, the TOS producers and creators, it can't get any more "official" than that, IMO.
And, again, Khan is referring to multiple starship designs and Constiution Class is just one of these.

Bottom line: My ongoing problem with retroactive continuity is that it doesn't mind "putting words into people's mouths" which these individuals never said or intended (e.g. Matt Jefferies).

I think it's fair to assume that nobody reading this would like to have something like that happening to him and her, but when that happens to others it's okay because its an acceptable sacrifice for the Holy Cow G.U.T.?

If something needs to be rationalized it's the flaws of retroactive continuity that contradict earlier canon whereever this is possible, which in this case I think it is:

Starships like the Enterprise beginning with a "16" belong to the Constitution Starship Class, those beginning with a "17" to the Enterprise Starship Class. The refit NCC-1701 is ESC, NCC-1701-A is CSC.

Simple, elegant and easy to understand because it answers most of the questions, IMO.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 11:20 AM   #206
Mario de Monti
Captain
 
Mario de Monti's Avatar
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
If something needs to be rationalized it's the flaws of retroactive continuity that contradict earlier canon whereever this is possible, which in this case I think it is:

Starships like the Enterprise beginning with a "16" belong to the Constitution Starship Class, those beginning with a "17" to the Enterprise Starship Class. The refit NCC-1701 is ESC, NCC-1701-A is CSC.

Simple, elegant and easy to understand because it answers most of the questions, IMO.
Well put I see it the same way and for the same reasons.
__________________
"Do you give me attitude, Spock?" - "I´m expressing multiple attitudes simultaneously, Sir. To which are you referring?"
Mario de Monti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 12:32 PM   #207
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's always been a collaborative and steadily unfolding effort, with sometimes later material supplanting earlier material (at times, by the same creators).
Except that the creator of the Enterprise, Walter Matt Jefferies, stated in the early 2000's in books and interviews (BBC-online) the same as in his original pre-production sketch with the text annotations: That the TOS Enterprise was "the first bird" and the "first in the [17th] series".

As the courteous gentleman he was, I'm confident he didn't want to offend anyone believing in "Constitution Class". Therefore he just stated as it was, leaving it to us to draw the proper conclusions from it - or not.
In the end, she's still a Constitution-class starship. Personal sentiment might be important to you, but that's about it.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's been officially established that the original Enterprise, NCC-1701, was a Constitution-class starship. She may not have been referred to as such in actual dialogue in TOS, but even as far back as 1966's "Space Seed," that was the name that was ultimately given for her design and it was finally confirmed in dialogue a couple of decades later in both TNG and DS9.
The Making of Star Trek established the original NCC-1701 to be an "Enterprise-class starship". Since this is the account of Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry/Stephen Whitfield, the TOS producers and creators, it can't get any more "official" than that, IMO.
And, again, Khan is referring to multiple starship designs and Constiution Class is just one of these.

Bottom line: My ongoing problem with retroactive continuity is that it doesn't mind "putting words into people's mouths" which these individuals never said or intended (e.g. Matt Jefferies).

I think it's fair to assume that nobody reading this would like to have something like that happening to him and her, but when that happens to others it's okay because its an acceptable sacrifice for the Holy Cow G.U.T.?

If something needs to be rationalized it's the flaws of retroactive continuity that contradict earlier canon whereever this is possible, which in this case I think it is:

Starships like the Enterprise beginning with a "16" belong to the Constitution Starship Class, those beginning with a "17" to the Enterprise Starship Class. The refit NCC-1701 is ESC, NCC-1701-A is CSC.

Simple, elegant and easy to understand because it answers most of the questions, IMO.

Bob
Doesn't really change anything. It's just what you personally believe, but it goes against canon. I think I'll stick with canon, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 04:00 PM   #208
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

To me it looks like our interpretation of "canon" is incompatible.

The way I see it "canon" is foremost "first comes, first serves", also to ensure respect for the intentions of the original creators. I think we all owe them that much, at least.

It seems that according to your interpretation of "canon" what is said last and alters, revises or overwrites previous canon is the neo-canon. Thus neo-canon prospers at the expense of previous canon and therefore has a somewhat ungrateful and parasitical nature, IMHO.

Most assuredly you're not alone as I can immediately think of 4-5 other BBS members that interpret "canon" the way you do.

But it's Star Trek and IDIC, so we can agree to disagree.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 04:07 PM   #209
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Except that the creator of the Enterprise, Walter Matt Jefferies, stated in the early 2000's in books and interviews (BBC-online) the same as in his original pre-production sketch with the text annotations: That the TOS Enterprise was "the first bird" and the "first in the [17th] series".
Not even later TOS adhered to this system, much less the films and the sequels. So as much as you personally adhere to it, it's invalid as far as the actual show is concerned.

As the courteous gentleman he was, I'm confident he didn't want to offend anyone believing in "Constitution Class". Therefore he just stated as it was, leaving it to us to draw the proper conclusions from it - or not.
So you can think for Jefferies as well?

The Making of Star Trek established the original NCC-1701 to be an "Enterprise-class starship". Since this is the account of Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry/Stephen Whitfield, the TOS producers and creators, it can't get any more "official" than that, IMO.
No, what is established on screen always takes precedence over what was written in a book. Even the current franchise-holders adhere to that.

Bottom line: My ongoing problem with retroactive continuity is that it doesn't mind "putting words into people's mouths" which these individuals never said or intended (e.g. Matt Jefferies).
Well, I'm sorry but that's too bad, because like C.E. Evans said, Star Trek isn't just the property of one guy.

I think it's fair to assume that nobody reading this would like to have something like that happening to him and her, but when that happens to others it's okay because its an acceptable sacrifice for the Holy Cow G.U.T.?
You're being overly dramatic. These people were being paid to make a TV show in the '60's. I seriously doubt that they (including Jefferies) took this shit anywhere near as seriously as you are.

If something needs to be rationalized it's the flaws of retroactive continuity that contradict earlier canon whereever this is possible, which in this case I think it is:

Starships like the Enterprise beginning with a "16" belong to the Constitution Starship Class, those beginning with a "17" to the Enterprise Starship Class. The refit NCC-1701 is ESC, NCC-1701-A is CSC.

Simple, elegant and easy to understand because it answers most of the questions, IMO.
And as I said to you before, if it helps you sleep at night to believe this, then good for you. Just don't expect others to think the same way.

To me it looks like our interpretation of "canon" is incompatible.

The way I see it "canon" is foremost "first comes, first serves", also to ensure respect for the intentions of the original creators. I think we all owe them that much, at least.

It seems that according to your interpretation of "canon" what is said last and alters, revises or overwrites previous canon is the neo-canon. Thus neo-canon prospers at the expense of previous canon and therefore has a somewhat ungrateful and parasitical nature, IMHO.

Most assuredly you're not alone as I can immediately think of 4-5 other BBS members that interpret "canon" the way you do.

But it's Star Trek and IDIC, so we can agree to disagree.
Canon is, and has always been, whatever the person currently in charge of the franchise says it is (or isn't). What anyone personally thinks is meaningless as far as that is concerned.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; September 5 2013 at 05:03 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 05:43 PM   #210
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was the Enterprise A actually the Yorktown?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
To me it looks like our interpretation of "canon" is incompatible.

The way I see it "canon" is foremost "first comes, first serves", also to ensure respect for the intentions of the original creators. I think we all owe them that much, at least.
That's totally your own thing, but it really has no bearing at all to what canon actually is.
It seems that according to your interpretation of "canon" what is said last and alters, revises or overwrites previous canon is the neo-canon.
No, canon is always what is currently official material. That was true back in 1966.

Thus neo-canon prospers at the expense of previous canon and therefore has a somewhat ungrateful and parasitical nature, IMHO.
That's a purist viewpoint, and a rather extreme one at that. It calls for the rejection of official material that doesn't meet a personal preference or belief.
Most assuredly you're not alone as I can immediately think of 4-5 other BBS members that interpret "canon" the way you do.
The way canon actually is. And we're probably among millions that do.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.