ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brexit

Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:04 AM   #1081
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Where do you get that nonsense from?
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info...ay-2017_en.pdf

Quote:
In these matters, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and the supervisory role of the Commission) should be maintained.
Quote:
The Agreement should safeguard the status and rights derived from union law at the withdrawal date, including those the enjoyment of which will intervene at a later date (e.g. rights related to old age pensions) both for EU27 citizens residing (or having resided) and/or working (or having worked)in the United Kingdom ... Those rights should be protected as directly enforceable vested rights for the life time of those concerned.
Quote:
workers and selfemployed, and inactive persons, who have resided in the UK or EU27 before the withdrawal date, and their family members who accompany or join them at any point in time before or after the withdrawal date
Quote:
The Agreement should ensure, where appropriate, the transfer to the United Kingdom of the ownership of: (a) Special fissile material located n the territory of the European Atomic Energy Community which is currently the property of the said Community in accordance with Article 86 of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the right of use of which is currently with a natural or legal person, whether public or private, in the United Kingdom
These could be interpreted in a number of ways, but I don't think I have grossly exaggerated them.

Last edited by Aber; Yesterday at 04:06 AM.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:32 AM   #1082
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info...ay-2017_en.pdf

These could be interpreted in a number of ways, but I don't think I have grossly exaggerated them.
Does that mean you retract your previous statement? I'd still like to know why you would say something like it.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:09 AM   #1083
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Does that mean you retract your previous statement? I'd still like to know why you would say something like it.
Which ones do you think are unsupportable?

eg the jurisdiction of the ECJ should be maintained is unequivocal.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:46 AM   #1084
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Which ones do you think are unsupportable?

eg the jurisdiction of the ECJ should be maintained is unequivocal.
Ok. Let's go through it step by step.

the UK gets no share of the EU's assets, except that it must take ownership of all the nuclear waste;
Unambiguously false.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publ...-settlement_en
Select quotes:
Quote:
[...]the paid-in capital of the United Kingdom in the EIB should be reimbursed to the United Kingdom.
[...]the paid-in capital of the United Kingdom in the ECB should be reimbursed to the Bank of England (BoE)...


the ECJ has full jurisdiction on EU citizens rights in the UK (whose only precedent was 19th century treaties with China);
Comparing the unequal treaties, which were forced on China at gunpoint, to the treaties peacefully negotiated with the UK is insanity.
A proper comparison would be ISDS clauses. The UK government has no problem with these clauses and has, in fact, explicitly pointed to them.

BTW:
Quote:
full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...ights_en_3.pdf


any EU citizen with any link to the UK could claim UK residence rights at any time in the future...
Unambigously false.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publ...zens-rights_en
Quote:
The Withdrawal Agreement should apply to the following persons
as covered by the Treaty and secondary Union law:
(a)EU27 citizens who reside or have resided in the UK at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement;
(c)The family members of the persons referred to in points (a) and
(b), regardless of their nationality, as covered by Directive 2004/38
, who have joined or will join the holder of the right at any point in time after the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement
[i.e. current and future family members];
(d)EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in an other EU27 Member State than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g. frontier workers];
(e)EU27 citizens and UK nationals and their family members covered by Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems who, at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, are or have been subject to the legislation of an EU27 Member State for UK nationals, or UK legislation for EU27 citizens [e.g.who have (i) left the UK or EU27 at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, but have aggregated periods for the calculation of future income replacing benefits (old age benefits, cash sickness benefits, invalidity benefits, survivor benefits and benefits in respect of accidents and work and occupational diseases), or (ii) who have left the UK or EU27 at the date
of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement andcurrently already
enjoy export of income replacing benefits (for example pensioners)]
tl;dr: People who have lived or worked in the UK before the withdrawal and their families; no more. What I left out is that this applies equally to UK citzens.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:54 AM   #1085
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 10,800
Quote:
The Agreement should ensure, where appropriate, the transfer to the United Kingdom of the ownership of: (a) Special fissile material located n the territory of the European Atomic Energy Community which is currently the property of the said Community in accordance with Article 86 of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the right of use of which is currently with a natural or legal person, whether public or private, in the United Kingdom
So the UK gets to keep any nuclear material it was using.
__________________
Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:27 AM   #1086
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
any EU citizen with any link to the UK could claim UK residence rights at any time in the future...
Unambigously false.
tl;dr: People who have lived or worked in the UK before the withdrawal and their families; no more.
In practice:
- those who have resided in the UK unambiguously covers those who for example who lived here as infants only. They get lifetime residence and other rights, and can bring their families with them.
- residence gets defined by the ECJ
- families gets defined by ECJ
- evidence needed to support residence also gets defined by the ECJ. Hypothetically a visit to the UK before Brexit, could be claimed as residence at any point in the future. What evidence would be needed to support such a claim?

Reference also the various statements made around the time along the lines that EU citizens should not lose any of their existing rights after Brexit.

Last edited by Aber; Yesterday at 06:36 AM.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:35 AM   #1087
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Quote:
full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement
And?

This was not the starting point of the negotiations, but a month after. Your claim was that the EU made reasonable demands throughout.

My view is that their initial position was maximalist and unreasonable, and they have since moved significantly to a far more reasonable position(although the focus has been on how far the UK has moved).
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:42 AM   #1088
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Ok. Let's go through it step by step.

the UK gets no share of the EU's assets, except that it must take ownership of all the nuclear waste;
Unambiguously false.
You are quoting a paper a month after the initial negotiating guideline, and I do not consider the share capital of EIB and ECB to be EU assets, as they are unambiguously owned by the UK/BoE.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:04 AM   #1089
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
In practice:
- those who have resided in the UK unambiguously covers those who for example who lived here as infants only. They get lifetime residence and other rights, and can bring their families with them.
- residence gets defined by the ECJ
- families gets defined by ECJ
- evidence needed to support residence also gets defined by the ECJ. Hypothetically a visit to the UK before Brexit, could be claimed as residence at any point in the future. What evidence would be needed to support such a claim?

Reference also the various statements made around the time along the lines that EU citizens should not lose any of their existing rights after Brexit.
I don't understand why you make up this nonsense. You can't possible believe that I would take your word on what the EU said, over what I just quoted the EU actually saying.

Originally Posted by Aber View Post
This was not the starting point of the negotiations, but a month after.
Wrong. These are the first position papers from the EU to the UK. This is the starting point.

Originally Posted by Aber View Post
You are quoting a paper a month after the initial negotiating guideline, and I do not consider the share capital of EIB and ECB to be EU assets, as they are unambiguously owned by the UK/BoE.
Yes, exactly. The UK gets back its share and pays what it has committed to pay. Perfectly reasonable. That was the EU's demand and that's what's happening.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #1090
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,679
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
the ECJ has full jurisdiction on EU citizens rights in the UK (whose only precedent was 19th century treaties with China); any EU citizen with any link to the UK could claim UK residence rights at any time in the future...
Similar treaties were made with the Ottoman Empire. But really, if you compare it with that, the EU was eminently reasonable that it didn't force the UK to legalize and buy hitherto illegal and highly addictive stuff like opium.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:05 AM   #1091
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,962
When you leave a club, you don't have to pay a share of the ongoing costs of building a new clubhouse - even if you were on the committee and voted in favour of building a new clubhouse before you left.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:11 AM   #1092
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,590
Enough with the stupid 'leaving a club' metaphors.

What is happening is far more complex and involved.
We are talking about international treaties, laws and future commitments entered in to by a national government.
We are talking about future legal, trading and diplomatic relations with one of the worlds biggest political and trading blocks.


You can only take the leaving a golf club crap so far.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:28 AM   #1093
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
When you leave a club, you don't have to pay a share of the ongoing costs of building a new clubhouse - even if you were on the committee and voted in favour of building a new clubhouse before you left.
Do you have a link for that? In Germany you are held accountable for your decisions. I find it hard to believe that UK law should be so different in that regard.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:35 AM   #1094
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,389
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
When you leave a club, you don't have to pay a share of the ongoing costs of building a new clubhouse - even if you were on the committee and voted in favour of building a new clubhouse before you left.
Aren't you getting tired of being wrong?

Just for you:
https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowle...sonally-liable
Amazer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:19 AM   #1095
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
Aren't you getting tired of being wrong?

Just for you:
https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowle...sonally-liable
You're wrong again, or at least what you posted is a non-sequitur. Once you leave a club, you are no longer a committee member of that club.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:35 AM   #1096
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,937
It's not a bloody golf club we appear to be trying to leave. It may be a little bit more involved.

But complexities appear to be outside the comprehension of most brexiteers.

Sound bites are much simpler, aren't they?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM   #1097
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I am no lawyer, but I assume that EU regs only need to be followed for goods going to the EU. The UK could manufacture goods to e.g. Chinese or US or Russian standards for export to those countries. The UK could manufacture goods to UK standards for UK sale only?

The EU may not allow glyphosate treated GMO crops entry but I do not think they could ban the UK from growing them, and exporting outside of the EU.
I think it works that any manufacturer has to make goods to the standard that applies in the country it sells to, UK or anywhere else.

The EU does not determine what UK companies make, so a UK manufacturer can make anything it wants where there is a suitable market.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:56 PM   #1098
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Why would it make sense for a company producing one product to then complicate their production and logistics by having the same item built to different standards for different parts of the world?
Who in the UK would buy a product that they knew was built to a lower standard than the one that was being sold to Europe?
Lots of companies all ready have to make different versions of the same product for sale around the world. For example, electrical products need adaptations depending on plug style and voltages.

The Chinese offer different standards of production for motorcycles. The bikes they make for the likes of Honda and Yamaha are built to a very high standard. The ones they are making for new UK companies like Sinnis and Herald, to be sold in the UK, are made to a middle standard. The ones they make to be sold as very cheap bikes are built to the lowest standard, suhc as Lifan. UK bikers can then chose whether they pay more for the higher standard or not.

Anyone who wants a cheaper but lower quality product will by something of a lower standard. That is lots of people, hence the success of shops such as Primark.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:23 PM   #1099
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,590
But all those bikes meet European Regs.

Just like a Rolls Royce and a Corsa meet the same regs
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM   #1100
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
But all those bikes meet European Regs.

Just like a Rolls Royce and a Corsa meet the same regs
Standard has different meanings. Both the Roller and the Coras can meet required standards, like there are required standards for plugs. But they can be built to differing standards of quality.

A UK company could sell a cheap plug that is of low quality standard in the EU, so long as it of the standard (often two pin) plug variety that would fit a socket, say in Spain. That same UK company could also make a very high standard plug that is aimed at say the hifi market, for those convinced such items make a difference to sound quality.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM   #1101
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,590
We know that there are different standards of finish and materials, that's not the point.
Complying with regulations is the point.
If you have engineered your products to comply with European regulations then you aren't going to be making different versions that don't comply with the regulations.
Why would you?

"Buy our toaster, not compliant with EU regs"

I suppose it's a tag line that might appeal to the more rabid Euroskeptics.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:03 PM   #1102
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,873
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
We know that there are different standards of finish and materials, that's not the point.
Complying with regulations is the point.
If you have engineered your products to comply with European regulations then you aren't going to be making different versions that don't comply with the regulations.
Why would you?

"Buy our toaster, not compliant with EU regs"

I suppose it's a tag line that might appeal to the more rabid Euroskeptics.
I doubt any manufacturer would do that, but they do make different quality standard toasters, cheap to expensive and to different electrical standards depending on the requirements of the countries they plan to sell toasters in.

They did that whilst we were in the EU and will do so once we have left.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #1103
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,962
Sometimes the standards are mutually exclusive. The most obvious examples are left hand drive vs right hand drive vehicles and electrical power cords. It's against the law to sell an appliance with (only) a European mains cord in the UK, and vice versa. There are also different standards for line voltage, frequency, video and audio encoding (NTSC, PAL, Secam), what parts of the spectrum can be used by radio transmitters and at what power levels, different gauges for railway vehicles, and so on and so on...

There are lots of examples of products that could be manufactured on a small scale, intended only to be sold on the home market, with customers keen to buy them. The products probably would be compliant with the EU regs, but a small low volume manufacturer can't justify the expense of getting the items tested to prove that they're compliant. The manufacturer then has to decide either to not make the products, or to make and sell them illegally.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:09 PM   #1104
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,590
What are all these items that are only wanted by the 'home market' but not by anywhere else?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:25 PM   #1105
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,389
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
You're wrong again, or at least what you posted is a non-sequitur. Once you leave a club, you are no longer a committee member of that club.
I've got very little doubt that leaving a club would absolve you from liabilities entered into while being a committee member but cannot find anything to confirm that.. that being the case, i'm withdrawing that claim.

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
Amazer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:34 AM   #1106
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,423
The UK's commitment to a soft Border in Ireland is now being put in doubt. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/i...exit-093cknrj9
David Davis yesterday claimed his government’s commitment to avoiding a hard Northern Irish border was just a “statement of intent.” Leo Varadkar had described the commitments as “politically bulletproof” and “cast iron.”

“This was a statement of intent more than anything else. Much more a statement of intent than it was a legally enforceable thing,” Mr Davis told the The Andrew Marr Show on BBC 1.

He also suggested that the UK would not pay its £39 billion exit bill to Brussels unless there was a trade deal.

It followed a similar claim from Michael Gove, the senior Tory Brexiteer, who said on Saturday that the British public could decide whether the UK government should honour its promise. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Gove said if British people “dislike the arrangement”, they could change it.
Can this be so? if so, is it wise? The days when Albion could be perfidious with impunity in Ireland are surely long gone.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:57 AM   #1107
Hubert Cumberdale
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 850
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The UK's commitment to a soft Border in Ireland is now being put in doubt. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/i...exit-093cknrj9
David Davis yesterday claimed his government’s commitment to avoiding a hard Northern Irish border was just a “statement of intent.” Leo Varadkar had described the commitments as “politically bulletproof” and “cast iron.”

“This was a statement of intent more than anything else. Much more a statement of intent than it was a legally enforceable thing,” Mr Davis told the The Andrew Marr Show on BBC 1.

He also suggested that the UK would not pay its £39 billion exit bill to Brussels unless there was a trade deal.

It followed a similar claim from Michael Gove, the senior Tory Brexiteer, who said on Saturday that the British public could decide whether the UK government should honour its promise. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Gove said if British people “dislike the arrangement”, they could change it.
Can this be so? if so, is it wise? The days when Albion could be perfidious with impunity in Ireland are surely long gone.
Yes and no respectively.

On the basis that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" it can be so, but to go around proclaiming this on national television is about what we can expect from David "Lazy as a toad and thick as mince" Davis.
Hubert Cumberdale is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

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 -7. The time now is 12:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.