welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Sept. 6: Veggie detector!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17275
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, let's look at engineering.

of the students enrolled in engineering, 77.7% were male and 22.3% were female.
of those got a degree, 76.8% were male and 23.2% were female.

if there were no differential dropout, the breakout for the degrees would be the same as the breakout for enrollment.

now, as you say, there are no ns or confidence intervals, so you don't know how solid those numbers are. but they are _consistent_ with sojobo's point
Sojobo wrote:
if men were better at math and sciences, and specifically at engineering (because it is so hard), then we would expect to see that women, enrolling in graduate school for engineering, would be less successful than men doing the same thing.


but in fact, your table shows that women are at least as successful as men in engineering (given the limitations of the data).

data doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
ok, let's look at engineering.
of the students enrolled in engineering, 77.7% were male and 22.3% were female.
of those got a degree, 76.8% were male and 23.2% were female.
if there were no differential dropout, the breakout for the degrees would be the same as the breakout for enrollment.
now, as you say, there are no ns or confidence intervals, so you don't know how solid those numbers are. but they are _consistent_ with sojobo's point
Sojobo wrote:
if men were better at math and sciences, and specifically at engineering (because it is so hard), then we would expect to see that women, enrolling in graduate school for engineering, would be less successful than men doing the same thing.

but in fact, your table shows that women are at least as successful as men in engineering (given the limitations of the data).
data doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.


No, because what if every year before 2010 50% of the people enrolling were male and 50% were female?
Heretical Rants wrote:
Yo Lich. I think what you are refuting and what Sojobo was arguing are not the same thing.

...unless you're simultaneously arguing that the numbers do support Ember and that they do not support Ember, and I know you're not arguing that since you hate obvious contradictions.

I'll go line by line if you want.... been a long time since I did one of these on a forum.....
Sojobo wrote:
If your claim were true, if men were better at math and sciences, and specifically at engineering (because it is so hard), then we would expect to see that women, enrolling in graduate school for engineering, would be less successful than men doing the same thing.
This is inconsistent because it is using a specialized subset of females (those already enrolling to engineering gradschool) to refute a claim about the general populous. Maybe women applying to engineering gradschool are a tougher breed than average women.
Sojobo wrote:

Lich Mong just quoted some statistics at you.
This statement is true. I did. (well, 'just' is arguable, but let's not go there...)
Sojobo wrote:

You responded to that post, so I'm going to assume you actually read them (possibly a risky assumption on my part).
I will assume he is making those assumptions.
Sojobo wrote:
Those statistics say that women make up 22.3% of graduate enrollment for engineering, and 23.2% of the doctoral degrees.
True.
Sojobo wrote:
This is very different than we guessed, based on your claim being true.
Why? What if 99% of all the years before were girls?
Sojobo wrote:
It should actually be quite an unlikely result, given the large number of trials.
Large number of what? How is he making this claim?
Additionally, they're not inconsitant because we don't know anything about this data point. Maybe 2010 was just a slow year for girls signing up for engineering gradschool.
Sojobo wrote:
Your claim probably doesn't have very much merit.
Ember778's claim doesn't have much merit, but neither does Sojobo's claims about Ember778's claim.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic


Last edited by Lich Mong on Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
But, sufficient to say, without knowing the standard deviation on those statistics you absolutely cannot say anything meaningful about the difference between 22.2% and 23.2%

First, thank you so much for the condescending link to standard deviation. It makes it much more clear that you were simply dismissing what I've said after the barest of skims rather than respecting me enough to actually think about what I'm saying. I request that you read what I'm saying a little more carefully this time.

Second, I'm not saying anything about the difference between 22.2% and 23.2%, except by comparison with every other broad category in your lists. Engineering is the single category with the most gain in that number, by a very wide margin. The ratio between doctorates and enrollments is more than 15% higher than with most categories, and 10% higher than any other except Biology. Your numbers do imply that women who enroll in engineering enjoy a higher success rate than the do in other fields, which directly contradicts Ember's assertion that Engineering is too hard for them.

Lich Mong wrote:
We simply don't know if 1% of the people coming 4-5 years before were female or if 99% were female. The numbers were probably close to 20%

Is the problem that you cannot correctly register the word "imply"? Are you having trouble differentiating between "probably" and "certainly"? Because what I have said is that Ember's claim is probably wrong, just as you have admitted enrollment is probably near 20% in other years. You have been reacting throughout as though I am claiming some sort of definitive conclusion, when I am not.

Also, your comment is absurd. I will wager my house against your retraction that female enrollment was neither 1% nor 99% for any year in the last twenty. What purpose does your silliness serve?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17275
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'll just go with sojobo here:
Sojobo wrote:

Lich Mong wrote:
We simply don't know if 1% of the people coming 4-5 years before were female or if 99% were female. The numbers were probably close to 20%

Is the problem that you cannot correctly register the word "imply"? Are you having trouble differentiating between "probably" and "certainly"? Because what I have said is that Ember's claim is probably wrong, just as you have admitted enrollment is probably near 20% in other years. You have been reacting throughout as though I am claiming some sort of definitive conclusion, when I am not.

Also, your comment is absurd. I will wager my house against your retraction that female enrollment was neither 1% nor 99% for any year in the last twenty. What purpose does your silliness serve?


and i doubt it was even as close as 50-50 for previous years. really, what is the likelyhood that enrollment numbers changed so drastically in just a few years?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
This is inconsistent because it is using a specialized subset of females (those already enrolling to engineering gradschool) to refute a claim about the general populous. Maybe women applying to engineering gradschool are a tougher breed than average women.

First, Ember said that Engineering was too hard for women, not that the field was perceived as too hard. I am using the same subset he was.

Second, to assume that women applying to grad school are a tougher breed, but not that men are, is ridiculous. You cannot have any basis for such an assumption. "If we make this absurd assumption, it makes your conclusion unlikely" is a very poor sort of argument.

Lich Mong wrote:
Why? What if 99% of all the years before were girls?
"If we make this utterly absurd assumption, it makes your conclusion unlikely" is a very, very poor sort of argument.

Lich Mong wrote:
Large number of what?

Large number of female students enrolling and graduating. Large enough that a bias against women succeeding would certainly have shown.

Lich Mong wrote:
How is he making this claim?

I extended his claim that engineering is too hard for women to conclude that women will be less successful in the field of engineering.

Lich Mong wrote:
Additionally, they're not inconsitant because we don't know anything about this data point. Maybe 2010 was just a slow year for girls signing up for engineering gradschool.
They are inconsistent given all known data. The assumption you want to make to argue with me that enrollment was actually 99% female a couple of years before is not worth considering.

Lich Mong wrote:
Ember778's claim doesn't have much merit, but neither does Sojobo's claims about Ember778's claim.

mouse and myself have both explained why it does.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
First, thank you so much for the condescending link to standard deviation. It makes it much more clear that you were simply dismissing what I've said after the barest of skims rather than respecting me enough to actually think about what I'm saying. I request that you read what I'm saying a little more carefully this time.
I am trying my best to be respectful, but -I will admit- it's becoming more difficult.

Sojobo wrote:
Second, I'm not saying anything about the difference between 22.2% and 23.2%, except by comparison with every other broad category in your lists.

Oh? What's this than:
Sojobo wrote:
Those statistics say that women make up 22.3% of graduate enrollment for engineering, and 23.2% of the doctoral degrees. This is very different than we guessed, based on your claim being true. It should actually be quite an unlikely result, given the large number of trials. Your claim probably doesn't have very much merit.
Seems like you're saying something fairly explicit based on that difference, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding. It is well known I am poor reader.

Sojobo wrote:
Engineering is the single category with the most gain in that number, by a very wide margin. The ratio between doctorates and enrollments is more than 15% higher than with most categories, and 10% higher than any other except Biology. Your numbers do imply that women who enroll in engineering enjoy a higher success rate than the do in other fields, which directly contradicts Ember's assertion that Engineering is too hard for them.
No, they don't.
First, what the other fields are doing is immaterial, unless you can show a correlation between enrollment in engineering and Biology.
Second, and I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, we can't assume the number coming in for 2010 has any relation to the number going out for 2010.

Sojobo wrote:

Is the problem that you cannot correctly register the word "imply"? Are you having trouble differentiating between "probably" and "certainly"? Because what I have said is that Ember's claim is probably wrong,

No, you did not. You said:
Sojobo wrote:
Again, you're looking for info that would give much stronger evidence, or rather much more precise evidence, but this doesn't preclude the numbers, as given, strongly implying that Ember is wrong.
and
Sojobo wrote:
Those statistics say that women make up 22.3% of graduate enrollment for engineering, and 23.2% of the doctoral degrees. This is very different than we guessed, based on your claim being true. It should actually be quite an unlikely result, given the large number of trials. Your claim probably doesn't have very much merit.

Which are not statements you can make; not based on those numbers.

Look, if you want to think Ember778 wrong, please do. If you want to claim you feel he is off his rocker, more power to you.

However, don't tell me those numbers imply anything about his statements (in that post a few pages back) are wrong. They don't.

Sojobo wrote:
just as you have admitted enrollment is probably near 20% in other years. You have been reacting throughout as though I am claiming some sort of definitive conclusion, when I am not.
You are making claims about those numbers that are factually inaccurate. All I can say is, based on my current mindset, such claims are upsetting to me.
Sojobo wrote:
Also, your comment is absurd. I will wager my house against your retraction that female enrollment was neither 1% nor 99% for any year in the last twenty. What purpose does your silliness serve?
Would you wager that house it was more than 23.2% on average in the 5 years before?
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Seems like you're saying something fairly explicit based on that difference, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding. It is well known I am poor reader.

It seems you are correct. I stated it much more simply than I meant to. Before saying anything I had compared it to the other numbers, and the point I intended to make was by comparison.

But as all of your comments decry the ability to get any information than the numbers, my corrected point should still be anathema to you. I don't think this changes any of the rest of the conversation.

Lich Mong wrote:
No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

Lich Mong wrote:
First, what the other fields are doing is immaterial, unless you can show a correlation between enrollment in engineering and Biology.

You are unmistakably wrong on this point. "What the other fields are doing" is intrinsically linked with Ember's original claim that women are unusually bad at Engineering. If we display that women show greater success in Engineering than other fields, it is in the most "material" way possible to contradict him.

Lich Mong wrote:
Second, and I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, we can't assume the number coming in for 2010 has any relation to the number going out for 2010.
You stated that enrollment for the last several years was probably near 20%. Why did you say that? Because there is, in fact, a relationship between the percentage of women enrolling into Engineering between years. The relationship is that it tends to be about the same. There is no reason to assume the wild jumps that you are assuming to make your points.

Lich Mong wrote:
No, you did not. You said:
Sojobo, bolding new, wrote:
but this doesn't preclude the numbers, as given, strongly implying that Ember is wrong.
Sojobo, bolding new, wrote:
It should actually be quite an unlikely result, given the large number of trials. Your claim probably doesn't have very much merit.

Yes, I did so?

Lich Mong wrote:
You are making claims about those numbers that are factually inaccurate. All I can say is, based on my current mindset, such claims are upsetting to me.

My claims would be factually inaccurate if I were claiming that the numbers prove that women are not less successful than men. I am instead claiming that the numbers imply that women are not less successful than men, which is still totally accurate.

Lich Mong wrote:
Would you wager that house it was more than 23% on average in the 5 years before?

Nope. I'd wager my bicycle that it was less than 30% over the five years, though. Am I to understand that this means you will not admit your numbers were absurd, then?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
First, Ember said that Engineering was too hard for women, not that the field was perceived as too hard. I am using the same subset he was.
He said:
Ember778 wrote:
Take my field of engineering for example. Engineering is a male dominated field. This is not because males are just employed more, but because more males pick engineering as a major than females.
Now this isn't because males are in any way smarter than females it's just males are normally better at math and sciences, and also women are normally less ambitious than males and engineering is pretty hard and requires a lot of effort.

You, Sojobo, are using the statistic that 22% of incoming gradstudents are girls to refute this?
How?
Remember, the girls applying to gradschool have already overcome the challenges presented in the field for their major.

Ember778 wrote:

Second, to assume that women applying to grad school are a tougher breed, but not that men are, is ridiculous. You cannot have any basis for such an assumption. "If we make this absurd assumption, it makes your conclusion unlikely" is a very poor sort of argument.
Without any evidence I have just as much right to make that they don't represent the average girl as you do to claim they do.

Ember778 wrote:
Large number of female students enrolling and graduating. Large enough that a bias against women succeeding would certainly have shown.

You're saying those polls polled 100% of incoming gradstudents?

I'd bet my house they did not.
Ember778 wrote:
I extended his claim that engineering is too hard for women to conclude that women will be less successful in the field of engineering.

Maybe that was my misunderstanding. You see, I assumed we were talking about the statements he actually made, not the ones you made-up that he made.
Ember778 wrote:
They are inconsistent given all known data. The assumption you want to make to argue with me that enrollment was actually 99% female a couple of years before is not worth considering.
Now you're making-up statements for me to have said as well.

You are correct, if my argument was based on there being 99% females for a few year you would have no problem disproving me.
Ember778 wrote:

mouse and myself have both explained why it does.
Sigh.....
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
You, Sojobo, are using the statistic that 22% of incoming gradstudents are girls to refute this?
How?

I don't know what this question means. I am not using a single number. I guess my answer is no?

Lich Mong wrote:
Remember, the girls applying to gradschool have already overcome the challenges presented in the field for their major.

As have the men.

Lich Mong wrote:
Without any evidence I have just as much right to make that they don't represent the average girl as you do to claim they do.

You can say they are not average, sure, but to claim that they are tougher is not acceptable. There is no basis whatsoever for making such a claim. Also, again, you would have to make the same assumption about the men involved, which kills your point.

Lich Mong wrote:
You're saying those polls polled 100% of incoming gradstudents?

I'd bet my house they did not.

I cannot for the life of me see how this is relevant. I don't think they were polls, though? Weren't they actual school data?

Lich Mong wrote:
Maybe that was my misunderstanding. You see, I assumed we were talking about the statements he actually made, not the ones you made-up that he made.

What? Stop here for a moment. You cannot see how saying that Engineering is too hard for women extends to saying that women will be less successful at Engineering? This is basically a rephrasing. It is utterly moronic to claim I have just "made this up". What is wrong with you?

Lich Mong wrote:
ow you're making-up statements for me to have said as well.

Quite a number of your arguments so far have been "What if the number was 99%?" and similar. I made up nothing.

Lich Mong wrote:
You are correct, if my argument was based on there being 99% females for a few year you would have no problem disproving me.

Your argument isn't based on the 99%. Your argument is "what if the 99%"? which is less provably wrong only because it is actually less rational.

Lich Mong wrote:
Sigh.....

Sigh...........
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
But as all of your comments decry the ability to get any information than the numbers, my corrected point should still be anathema to you. I don't think this changes any of the rest of the conversation.
No, my comments don't.
Sojobo wrote:

You are unmistakably wrong on this point. "What the other fields are doing" is intrinsically linked with Ember's original claim that women are unusually bad at Engineering. If we display that women show greater success in Engineering than other fields, it is in the most "material" way possible to contradict him.
Sigh....
Read you're own statements, please.
You did use the in-out numbers in the other fields to claim there was a large disparity in the Engineering in-out numbers.

That's what I'm objecting to.

Sojobo wrote:
You stated that enrollment for the last several years was probably near 20%. Why did you say that? Because there is, in fact, a relationship between the percentage of women enrolling into Engineering between years. The relationship is that it tends to be about the same. There is no reason to assume the wild jumps that you are assuming to make your points.
We are not talking about inferences made about "wild jumps" but the differences of 1% point.
(which could be wild for all the hell we know because we don't have error bars)
Sojobo wrote:

Yes, I did so?
So, those are both not what you said you said, and much stronger statements than you said you said.
Sojobo wrote:

My claims would be factually inaccurate if I were claiming that the numbers prove that women are not less successful than men. I am instead claiming that the numbers imply that women are not less successful than men, which is still totally accurate.
No, it's not.

Sojobo wrote:

Nope. I'd wager my bicycle that it was less than 30% over the five years, though.
Well, why not your house that it was over 23.2%
That's the number --after all-- it would have to be under for your statements to be reasonable.
Sojobo wrote:

Am I to understand that this means you will not admit your numbers were absurd, then?
Yes, I will admite the numbers I purposefully chose to be high to illustrate my point were unrealistic.

You 'got' me.
'_'
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lich Mong



Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 475

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
I am not using a single number.
Shocked lul, wut?
Sojobo wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
You're saying those polls polled 100% of incoming gradstudents?

I cannot for the life of me see how this is relevant.

You can't... you can't see how sampling size would... you... y....
...........
.......
.....
...
..
.


Yeah, I'm done.

Bye.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10558
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lich Mong wrote:
Sojobo wrote:
I am not using a single number.
Shocked lul, wut?
Sojobo wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
You're saying those polls polled 100% of incoming gradstudents?

I cannot for the life of me see how this is relevant.

You can't... you can't see how sampling size would... you... y....
...........
.......
.....
...
..
.


Yeah, I'm done.

Bye.

What you're talking about is effectively impossible, therefore using it even as a hypothetical is pointless.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Ember778



Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
Sojobo wrote:
I am not using a single number.
Shocked lul, wut?
Sojobo wrote:
Lich Mong wrote:
You're saying those polls polled 100% of incoming gradstudents?

I cannot for the life of me see how this is relevant.

You can't... you can't see how sampling size would... you... y....
...........
.......
.....
...
..
.


Yeah, I'm done.

Bye.

What you're talking about is effectively impossible, therefore using it even as a hypothetical is pointless.


Uh, not impossible. Just very very hard.

It would require government access for sure.

I think we could do it. Do we have any hackers in the house? Okay here's the plan alpha team storms the pentagon and ties up everyone in there. After they do that they let bravo team in and they get to work hacking into the CIA database which contains the top secret graduate student data. Meanwhile alpha team negotiates with the police for the lives of our prisoners. They negotiate and get a helicopter. As the FBI is delivering a helicopter bravo team finishes up hacking into the pentagon and downloads the grad student data. We then all proceed to fly off putting the helicopter on autopilot and parachute off in random locations never to be caught.

Who's with me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10558
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently the concept behind the words "effectively impossible" escape you.

Quote:
ef∑fec∑tive∑ly (-fktv-l)
adv.
1. In an effective way.
2. For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.


Also, when you examine 100% of a given population in a survey it's no longer a survey, it's called a census. you know, the kind of thing that takes so much effort our own Government only conducts them every 10 years, and even then they're only cursory questions.

Fuck man, this is statistics 101 shit.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10793
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ember778 wrote:
I believe they're sufficient to explain things like gender roles. Take my field of engineering for example. Engineering is a male dominated field. This is not because males are just employed more, but because more males pick engineering as a major than females.

And how do you know this isn't a question of socialization rather than biology?

Quote:
Now this isn't because males are in any way smarter than females it's just males are normally better at math and sciences, and also women are normally less ambitious than males and engineering is pretty hard and requires a lot of effort.

Sweet! So, what if men aren't better at math generally? And that the difference is often social in nature (which is not a new position). If men are better at science why are 78% of veterinary school students female? Even though it's apparently harder to get into vet school than med school. Since you're a hard scientist, we'll gloss over the social sciences (hint: not male-dominated).

Quote:
Ambitiousness can be directly tied to testosterone, and males are just generally better at math and science because of how our brains work (psychology people could explain it better than me).

Good news! I'm a psychology person (I have a degree and everything).
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 ... 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 19 of 25

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group