RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,959
Posts: 5,391,430
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 438
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 July 1 2013, 05:53 PM   #31
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I'm saying that Starfleet can lend itself to a military role if and when it needs to but otherwise isn't an organization that actually fits the modern definition of "military" and apparently doesn't even fit the 24th century definition.
It fits the modern definition of military because it's a permanent, governmentally-established organization that defends the state and fights wars. Military organizations, especially navies, have historically taken on various additional duties and still do today. The roles of exploration and defense in Trek would seem to be even more intertwined that any in real-world history, since many of the greatest threats to the Federation have come out of the unknown. What that means for the definition of "military" in that world is up for speculation.

Last edited by J.T.B.; July 1 2013 at 06:08 PM.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 06:42 PM   #32
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

neozeks wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I'm saying that Starfleet can lend itself to a military role if and when it needs to but otherwise isn't an organization that actually fits the modern definition of "military" and apparently doesn't even fit the 24th century definition.
Wikipedia wrote:
A military is an organization authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or pereceived threats.
I'd say Starfleet fits that definition.
So do resistance movements and terrorist organizations, but nobody ever confuses them with "the military."

Mainly this is a feature of current international law and not simply of definitions: the Geneva Conventions requires the clear separation between military and civilian operations at all times and states that military operations are prohibited from damaging civilian infrastructure.

The Starfleet doesn't normally distinguish between "civilian and non-civilian" targets in its normal operations. Their much greater concern involves the prime directive, which tells them when they can and cannot interfere with other cultures. This is a VERY important difference, because if the Federation was following anything similar to the Geneva Conventions, we have effectively seen the Enterprise turning its weapons against civilian installations quite a number of times, often in the absence of declared hostilities. There are various races such as the Borg, the Dominion, the Klingons and even the Ferengi where the distinction between civilians and military forces is either vague or totally non-existent.

And I'd say this distinction of "if and when it needs to" is meaningless because it always needs to. Even when there is no war. The Neutral Zone always has to be patrolled, for example, and that's a military operation.
Strictly speaking, that's a border security operation, which is usually a job for law enforcement, not the military.

As long as the Federation has potentially hostile neighbours, the need for a military role is permanent.
And that is distinct from the need for a permanent military, the existence of which is necessitated less by the practical need for a fighting force as for the need to distinguish between fighters and non-fighters. In a society where that distinction has become irrelevant (if said society was surrounded by people/things that don't recognize the difference anyway), so too would the concept of a permanent military.

Put that another way: if the United States were suddenly threatened by a species of hyper-intelligent sharks who thought the American obesity epidemic made us especially tasty, which organization would be best suited to respond to that threat? My first guess would be NOAA; my second guess would be the Coast Guard. And after a hundred and fifty years of having to deal with weird shit like that on a regular basis, it seems to me that NOAA and the Coast Guard would probably merge at some point.

The fact that most of the fleet might be doing something else (which I don't think is even true much of the time) doesn't make Starfleet non-military any more than the fact that the USCG spends most of it's time doing search and rescue, disaster response and so on makes the USCG non-military.
The thing that makes the U.S. Coast Guard a military organization is the U.S. law says it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is one of the very few coast guard organizations in the world that has this feature; most other nations -- Japan, for example -- operate theirs under civilian ministries.

This also appears to be a difference between Starfleet and its neighbors: most spacefaring powers incorporate their space fleets under military jurisdiction, while the Federation -- for whatever reason -- does not.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 06:51 PM   #33
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I'm saying that Starfleet can lend itself to a military role if and when it needs to but otherwise isn't an organization that actually fits the modern definition of "military" and apparently doesn't even fit the 24th century definition.
It fits the modern definition of military because it's a permanent, governmentally-established organization that defends the state and fights wars. Military organizations, especially navies, have historically taken on various additional duties and still do today. The roles of exploration and defense in Trek would seem to be even more intertwined that any in real-world history, since many of the greatest threats to the Federation have come out of the unknown. What that means for the definition of "military" in that world is up for speculation.
It's not up for speculation. Starfleet officers understand that definition and have said point blank that Starfleet does not fit that definition. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 07:09 PM   #34
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This also appears to be a difference between Starfleet and its neighbors: most spacefaring powers incorporate their space fleets under military jurisdiction, while the Federation -- for whatever reason -- does not.
Really? I can't think of any civilian organizations whose personnel are covered by a separate judicial system and tried by courts-martial. Outside of martial-law states, anyway.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's not up for speculation. Starfleet officers understand that definition and have said point blank that Starfleet does not fit that definition. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
It's not up for speculation? Many pages of text have been typed in these forums speculating on it. There are enough contradictions in how Starfleet personnel have described their roles and missions that it is still speculative for purposes of this 21st century discussion.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 07:25 PM   #35
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
This also appears to be a difference between Starfleet and its neighbors: most spacefaring powers incorporate their space fleets under military jurisdiction, while the Federation -- for whatever reason -- does not.
Really? I can't think of any civilian organizations whose personnel are covered by a separate judicial system and tried by courts-martial.
The Japanese (and also Chinese) Coast Guard, to which I have already linked. Both can be tried before military tribunals under certain circumstances.

OTOH, German and Dutch soldiers are tried exclusively before civilian courts (often special assemblies of civilian courts that specialize in military matters), as are Indian soldiers accused of rape or murder of a civilian. Very few countries actually convene court-martials on an ad hoc basis; most have a permanent judicial body that handles those cases.

Interestingly, the Klingons -- arguably the most militaristic race apart from the Dominion -- do not convene court-martials, as they prefer to settle their disputes with sword fights. The Cardassians, on the other hand, try EVERYONE in military courts.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's not up for speculation. Starfleet officers understand that definition and have said point blank that Starfleet does not fit that definition. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
It's not up for speculation? Many pages of text have been typed in these forums speculating on it.
What's generally speculated on is whether or not Starfleet meets OUR definition, and to what extent the 21st century definition is even applicable.

That it doesn't fit THEIR definition is just a matter of canon; it is, in fact, one of the very few things that has ever been clearly stated on screen that (some) Trek fans simply refuse to accept.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; July 1 2013 at 07:47 PM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2013, 10:49 PM   #36
neozeks
Captain
 
neozeks's Avatar
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So do resistance movements and terrorist organizations, but nobody ever confuses them with "the military."
No, not really. Resistance movements and terrorist organizations aren't authorized by their greater society, ie. they are not legal organs of a state.

I'm not sure what your point regarding international law is. The 24th century interstellar law might not have it's own equivalent of the Geneva Conventions but what does that have to do with current definitions? Under current IL Starfleet would most definitely be considered an armed force in a conflict. (Not that IL actually gives a definition of a military - it just says "combatants = regular military + other armed groups that fulfil certain criteria").

Though I highly doubt the highly moralistic Federation wouldn't have rules that protect non-combatants - which, incidentally, is not the same as "civilians". Civilians can be combatants too. And some military personnel can be non-combatants.

Strictly speaking, that's a border security operation, which is usually a job for law enforcement, not the military.
I'm not talking about stoping smugglers or other civilians crossing the border, I'm talking about preventing military forces of a hostile neighbour from getting into your territory. That's why I specifically chose the Neutral Zone. The Neutral Zone is much more similar to the real world DMZ between the two Koreas than to a normal border between two countries.


The thing that makes the U.S. Coast Guard a military organization is the U.S. law says it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is one of the very few coast guard organizations in the world that has this feature; most other nations -- Japan, for example -- operate theirs under civilian ministries.
Those other coast guards don't have the traits of a military that the USCG has - they don't fall under a separate legal and judicial system and they don't fight in wars. The law doesn't treat the USCG as part of the military just because. There would be little point in declaring the USCG a military organization if it didn't also have certain traits that are inherent in the term "military". So yes, there is more to it than just a specific legal provision saying "this is a military".

The Japanese (and also Chinese) Coast Guard, to which I have already linked. Both can be tried before military tribunals under certain circumstances.
Any sources for that? As far as I know not even members of the actual Japanese military are tried before military tribunals. Actually, Japan's military technically isn't even a military, they're considered civil servants under Japanese domestic law. Yet everyone recognizes they are de facto a military. Which might actually be a nice fit for 24th century views on Starfleet (except Starfleet is then more military-like than the JSDF, since Starfleet also has court-martials while the JSDF doesn't).
__________________
What if it's a smart fungus?
neozeks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:27 AM   #37
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

neozeks wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
So do resistance movements and terrorist organizations, but nobody ever confuses them with "the military."
No, not really. Resistance movements and terrorist organizations aren't authorized by their greater society, ie. they are not legal organs of a state.
"State" and "greater society" are not at all the same thing. Stateless ethnic/political groups that have their own combat forces are not considered to have a military organization for that very reason: the lack of recognizable legal statute authorizing those organizations on behalf of any government.

I'm not sure what your point regarding international law is. The 24th century interstellar law might not have it's own equivalent of the Geneva Conventions but what does that have to do with current definitions?
Current law require governments to make a clear distinction between military and non-military organizations. Interstellar law does not, which is probably why many species rarely bother to make that distinction. They create organizations with capabilities that best suit the priorities of their government, and apparently they find it more efficient to consolidate those capabilities into a single larger body than a whole bunch of smaller ones with separate command structures and logistics chains. Thus we have people like the Ferengi, whose military is also synonymous with its trade unions and probably its banking industry as well.

Under current IL Starfleet would most definitely be considered an armed force in a conflict.
And "armed force", as I said above, is not always the same thing as "military." The Hagannah and the Irgun were an armed force a full ten years before the state they came to represent ever existed on paper.

Strictly speaking, that's a border security operation, which is usually a job for law enforcement, not the military.
I'm not talking about stoping smugglers or other civilians crossing the border, I'm talking about preventing military forces of a hostile neighbour from getting into your territory.
Which is still a law enforcement issue, since said vessels are typically intercepted, stopped, inspected and sometimes impounded. In the United States it is one of the very few capacities in which a military entity (the Coast Guard) is empowered to act domestically in a law enforcement role. In other countries, it is a role filled by both civilian coast guards and regular military units, whoever happens to be closest. Short of a full blown war, this is usually sufficient.

The thing that makes the U.S. Coast Guard a military organization is the U.S. law says it is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is one of the very few coast guard organizations in the world that has this feature; most other nations -- Japan, for example -- operate theirs under civilian ministries.
Those other coast guards don't have the traits of a military that the USCG has - they don't fall under a separate legal and judicial system and they don't fight in wars.
Considering we don't actually KNOW anything about the legal system of the Federation, this is a guess on your part.

And yes, the coast guards of those countries DO fight in wars, and have at many times participated in military operations in their nations' coastal waters. Interestingly, the original Revenue Cutter Service -- the civilian law enforcement service that is the immediate predecessor of the Coast Guard -- also participated in war prior to its formalization as a uniformed service.

The law doesn't treat the USCG as part of the military just because. There would be little point in declaring the USCG a military organization if it didn't also have certain traits that are inherent in the term "military".
The Coast Guard was never "declared" to be a military organization; it was CREATED as one in 1915 when two civilian agencies were incorporated into it and was intentionally modeled after the U.S. Navy.

Actually, Japan's military technically isn't even a military, they're considered civil servants under Japanese domestic law. Yet everyone recognizes they are de facto a military. Which might actually be a nice fit for 24th century views on Starfleet
Very true. Except that Starfleet's operations, ships, mission roles and even its rank structure (the suspicious absence of enlisted crewmen on the Enterprise-D) are a better fit for an armed version of NOAA.

Which basically gives you a good model on how Starfleet came to exist in the first place. United Earth came out of the post-atomic horror with a fresh prohibition on the formation of a military space force (much like Japan's Article 9). Since there was no prohibition on the creation of space research agencies, United Earth created Starfleet; since there was no prohibition on ARMING research vessels, Starfleet became Earth's only active combat force in space.

The question of whether or not the Federation has OTHER military forces apart from Starfleet is an interesting one, however. It could go either way, but I find it difficult to believe the Andorians or the Tellarites would give up their fleets and play second fiddle to Earth. THEIR space fleets are almost certainly military in nature, which would probably be more apparent if they ever showed up more than once or twice in 20 seasons of television.

I would go so far as to speculate that the 24th century version of an Andorian battle cruiser would probably resemble a slightly smaller and noticeably more agile version of the Battlestar Pegasus.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:52 AM   #38
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
one of the very few things that has ever been clearly stated on screen that (some) Trek fans simply refuse to accept.
When has it been stated that Starfleet isn't a military and which series did it apply to?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:25 AM   #39
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
one of the very few things that has ever been clearly stated on screen that (some) Trek fans simply refuse to accept.
When has it been stated that Starfleet isn't a military and which series did it apply to?
Enterprise: the distinction between "the military" and Starfleet, the former referring exclusively to the MACOs

STXI: Scotty taking issue with Starfleet performing an exclusively military mission.

TNG: Picard's exact words "Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration," followed by Riker's statement: "I think it's a waste of effort to test our combat skills. It's a minor province in the make-up of a starship captain.".

DS9 Kira says "I thought starfleet doesn't believe in warships?" to which Sisko replies "Desperate times breed desperate measures, Major."

Voyager is the only one I can't find a reference for, mainly because I detest Voyager and can't watch more than two episodes in week without becoming disoriented.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 02:29 PM   #40
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
one of the very few things that has ever been clearly stated on screen that (some) Trek fans simply refuse to accept.
When has it been stated that Starfleet isn't a military and which series did it apply to?
Enterprise: the distinction between "the military" and Starfleet, the former referring exclusively to the MACOs

STXI: Scotty taking issue with Starfleet performing an exclusively military mission.

TNG: Picard's exact words "Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration," followed by Riker's statement: "I think it's a waste of effort to test our combat skills. It's a minor province in the make-up of a starship captain.".

DS9 Kira says "I thought starfleet doesn't believe in warships?" to which Sisko replies "Desperate times breed desperate measures, Major."

Voyager is the only one I can't find a reference for, mainly because I detest Voyager and can't watch more than two episodes in week without becoming disoriented.
So basically the evidence indicates TNG-related shows/continuity and nuTrek have a non-military Starfleet while the TOS and the TOS Movies have a military Starfleet.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 06:31 PM   #41
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Starfleet is the uniformed armed forces of the Federation.
"Uniformed armed forces" is a specific legal category used in international law ...
And of course prior to that, the British Navy (and before that the English Navy) were their nation's "uniformed armed forces." America and other nations also posessed uniformed armed forces before 1864 (first geneva convention).

The United Federation of Planets probably isn't based on the Geneva Conventions and old Earth notions about the legal status of uniformed armed forces would be considered quaint and primitive ...
The UFP might have that convention frimly ingrained in the way they do things. Earth was one of the founding member of the Federation and Starfleet seem to to a large degree be based upon Human military procedures.

Many of the real world people who created Star Trek were US military veterans, it only natural that their experience found their way in to the show, rank structure, custom and courtesies, and so forth.

It maybe a bit telling that Starfleet uses the ranks of Commander and Lt. Commander, which pins the originals of Starfleet's rank structure to four Human Navies.

Starfleet you might have notice doesn't use "Sub-Commander."

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 07:40 PM   #42
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

I really liked the idea of the MACOs, who could be assigned to a starship whenever military force was necessary.
Actually, the whole point with their introduction seemed to be that they never did that sort of thing, which is why Forrest thought that Archer might be offended. After all, Archer had heavily armed troops of his own, in Starfleet uniforms, to do whatever internal defending his starship needed. And that was with an explicitly unique exploration-oriented starship, suggesting that most other Starfleet vessels would be dedicated to combat. (Or then to asteroid trawling or buoy maintenance, but somehow I doubt that.)

The Military Assault Command vs. Starfleet Command thing sounds like classic interservices rivalry: the MACO forces do their own thing, possibly with their own ships, and when a MACO contingent is sent aboard a SFC vessel to do the job of Starfleet's own "Marines", it's naturally considered an insult.

Whether any of that carried over when the UFP was formed, we don't know. We get occasional references to Commands other than Starfleet Command in TNG and DS9, but all of those seem to be subservient to Starfleet Command, rather than equals and rivals. Then again, all of those Terraform Commands and whatnot pop out of the left field and then disappear; statistically, something like Military Command (in the old sense of military = ground forces) might exist but remain unseen, in TNG at least. In the war-heavy DS9, that's rather unlikely, though.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 09:32 PM   #43
J.T.B.
Commodore
 
J.T.B.'s Avatar
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

And yes, the coast guards of those countries DO fight in wars, and have at many times participated in military operations in their nations' coastal waters. Interestingly, the original Revenue Cutter Service -- the civilian law enforcement service that is the immediate predecessor of the Coast Guard -- also participated in war prior to its formalization as a uniformed service.
[...]
The Coast Guard was never "declared" to be a military organization; it was CREATED as one in 1915 when two civilian agencies were incorporated into it and was intentionally modeled after the U.S. Navy.
The USCG is more like a military organization charged with law enforcement, which have long existed and still exist in many countries. The US Revenue Marine/Revenue Cutter Service was not a civilian organization and essentially no different from the early USCG: It was a uniformed service of the United States under the Treasury Department, and, since the 1790s, could be transferred to operate under the Navy Department when ordered by the President (usually wartime). Officers held commissions from the President, confirmed by the Senate. Congress gave the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to regulate the service, and its personnel were subject to its regulations and discipline and tried in its service courts.

Very true. Except that Starfleet's operations, ships, mission roles and even its rank structure (the suspicious absence of enlisted crewmen on the Enterprise-D) are a better fit for an armed version of NOAA.
Enlisted crew weren't featured much in the series to be sure, but they were there (O'Brien, Crewman Tarses).

Enterprise: the distinction between "the military" and Starfleet, the former referring exclusively to the MACOs

STXI: Scotty taking issue with Starfleet performing an exclusively military mission.

TNG: Picard's exact words "Starfleet is not a military organization. Its purpose is exploration," followed by Riker's statement: "I think it's a waste of effort to test our combat skills. It's a minor province in the make-up of a starship captain.".

DS9 Kira says "I thought starfleet doesn't believe in warships?" to which Sisko replies "Desperate times breed desperate measures, Major."

Voyager is the only one I can't find a reference for, mainly because I detest Voyager and can't watch more than two episodes in week without becoming disoriented.
So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is, and some Starfleet personnel identify themselves as soldiers. That's hardly definitive enough to rule out any other interpretation.
J.T.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 09:36 PM   #44
Crazyewok
Commander
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That it doesn't fit THEIR definition is just a matter of canon; it is, in fact, one of the very few things that has ever been clearly stated on screen that (some) Trek fans simply refuse to accept.
Just because something is cannon does not mean it isnt stupid.

And my rule is if its stupid its wrong!

Dont care if its cannon or not the rule applys

Other examples include:

Romulans ships haveing only sublight ships in balance of terror.

The whole of threshold

The no exchange medium concept on earth.
Crazyewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 10:17 PM   #45
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Marines and Combat Personel?

So there's one person explicitly stating that Starfleet isn't military, but others have said it is, and some Starfleet personnel identify themselves as soldiers.
Might be as simple as a return to the old distinction of Military vs. Navy. Picard would be saying "Starfleet is not an organization of mindless infantrymen doing their stupid drills, which is why I initially objected to these wargames". This regardless of whether a Military (in the opposite-of-Navy sense) still exists in Picard's time - or whether he's throwing the insult exactly because the last Military that practiced those mindless drills was disbanded long ago, so no living person will be offended.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo 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 09:01 AM.

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