Poll: Would you take a Cosmopolitan certificate

Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Cosmopolitan

  1. #1
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Cosmopolitan

    From the estoics to Grocio and in more recent times with the UN and other international organizations an idea has come out. Humanist and in many cases idealist, but always a panacea for doctrinarial, theoretical and religious problems, even instrument of the imperialism... The city of the world. So let's make this a pool. If you could have your Cosmopolitan certificate would you get it, let me say that this is not an state, it represents a natural community of people, beyond the barriers of bureaucracy, nationalisms, technocracy, territory, etc. There's no law, wich means that there's no state, you're still a citizen of your city of birth/choice, but you also get some benefits that some people don't want you to get, like for example you'll not be tortured in any place of the world.

    NOTE: Yes this is sarcastic in part. Only to demonstrate that if bureaucratic requirements were met the usual arguement against things like citizenship benefits would be obsolete. Only a formal barrier separates that kind of reasoning from justice.

    But please, ignore the sarcasm and give me an answer, if it can be a reasoned one, even better.
    Born On The Flames

  2. #2
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    For Texas to become a city of the wrold would mean for us to get taken down a few pegs. I think not
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  3. #3
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South
    For Texas to become a city of the world would mean for us to get taken down a few pegs. I think not
    Texas could become a city of the world, it would just require that Texas conquered the entire world. Maybe a long term goal for Megalos Texas?
    __________________
    Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
    BigTex
    Ridicolus
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  4. #4
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    I dont want to conquer the rest of the wrold. I want to keep Texas Texan...
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

  5. #5
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Anarchy on such a scale would not work given the human condition
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  6. #6
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    A beaurecracy is a necessity in the maintenance of human society; a beaurecracy that works needs power. Preferably, power that is at least theoretically justified through a social contract theory where power originates from the individual. In other words, to hell with the Leviathan.

    Following which, such a Cosmopolitan "certificate" would require a working beaurecracy, which implies a working state (at least halfway through, anyway). A world state, or an all-encompassing organization with the necessary powers, would be required to give such a certificate practical value.

    The possibility of a world state is pretty low. As much as I despise Nationalism myself, it'll be a long and arduous path to acquire even a semblance of global unity that allow such worldwide protections absolute.

    For now, though, it should be realistic and quite urgent to make sure that such things as torture are not tolerated in the international community. The phrase "crime against humanity" exists in our vocabulary for a reason. The latest pathetic display of cowardice by the US Congress is a sad step backwards.

    The claim of anarchy as a working model is out of the question. It stands on weaker grounds than moderate socialism.

  7. #7
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Anarchy on such a scale would not work given the human condition
    I didn't suggest anarchy. I'm suggesting something more simbolic, but also something that gives you the benefits of actual international legislation without the obstacles of formal thinking and bureaucracy. Again simbolic in an hipotetic situation but still not anarchy since I'm supposing a legal frame here. You're still subject to the laws of the State you live in and also you receive the benefits that the City of the World has for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiochus
    A beaurecracy is a necessity in the maintenance of human society; a beaurecracy that works needs power. Preferably, power that is at least theoretically justified through a social contract theory where power originates from the individual. In other words, to hell with the Leviathan.
    Yes it's a necessity of modern days, the bureau is a necessity not the cracy part. However I'm not suggesting the creation of a new system, the local fabric and mechanic could very well be used by the person who wants a "certificate".
    Following which, such a Cosmopolitan "certificate" would require a working beaurecracy, which implies a working state (at least halfway through, anyway). A world state, or an all-encompassing organization with the necessary powers, would be required to give such a certificate practical value.
    A world wide bureaucracy would only require an administrative and executive power. But again I'm not suggesting that.
    The possibility of a world state is pretty low. As much as I despise Nationalism myself, it'll be a long and arduous path to acquire even a semblance of global unity that allow such worldwide protections absolute.
    Yes as it's the idea of the Cosmopolitan becoming more than metaphysics. However I abhor the idea of a world wide State as you could imagine.
    For now, though, it should be realistic and quite urgent to make sure that such things as torture are not tolerated in the international community. The phrase "crime against humanity" exists in our vocabulary for a reason. The latest pathetic display of cowardice by the US Congress is a sad step backwards.
    I think it's more a display of them following the mainstream idea that the Constitution is above all other law. I hold the opinion that International Law, particularily respecting Human Rights, once ratified are at the same height of any Constitutional clause. And I fully agree with you. The idea that the citizenship grants you the benefit of psico-physic integrity was always wrong and even more now with the formalized obligation of a great part of the world in the international principles.
    The claim of anarchy as a working model is out of the question. It stands on weaker grounds than moderate socialism.
    I won't debate that, but I didn't suggest it either.

    Quote Originally Posted by STFS
    I dont want to conquer the rest of the wrold. I want to keep Texas Texan...
    You would be Texan. Nationalism is not bad, is only bad if it becomes a matter of politics.
    Last edited by Soulforged; 10-08-2006 at 21:56.
    Born On The Flames

  8. #8
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    I didn't suggest anarchy. I'm suggesting something more simbolic, but also something that gives you the benefits of actual international legislation without the obstacles of formal thinking and bureaucracy. Again simbolic in an hipotetic situation but still not anarchy since I'm supposing a legal frame here. You're still subject to the laws of the State you live in and also you receive the benefits that the City of the World has for you.
    Then your not suggesting a cosmopolitan status.
    Which requires by definition having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing. If one is still subject to the laws of the state in which they live they by default can not meet the definition of cosmopolitan.

    So are you really attempting to advocate anarchy or a world wide government? Especially since you tap-danced around the specifics of an answer in your response to me and to Antiochus.
    Last edited by Redleg; 10-08-2006 at 22:03.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  9. #9
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Then your not suggesting a cosmopolitan status.
    Which requires by definition having worldwide rather than limited or provincial scope or bearing. If one is still subject to the laws of the state in which they live they by default can not meet the definition of cosmopolitan.
    Not really. You already are an human, as such from this perspective you're entitled to some rights. The Cosmopolitan Certificate is more simbolic, as I said, a simbolic way of formalizing that Status.
    So are you really attempting to advocate anarchy or a world wide government? Especially since you tap-danced around the specifics of an answer in your response to me and to Antiochus.
    *What does "tap-danced" means?* Wide world anarchy would be something different. Perhaps I should define it to let the differences show up. A world wide anarchy would suppose a world wide federation of little cooperatives (wich is exactly what Bakunin wanted), this cooperatives should end with politic nationalism (wich means making nationalism a matter of state and also identifying the nation with the State), the cooperatives should rule by themselves in an horizontal plane, the cooperatives should also be united to form this federation wich only supposes a cooperation between the cooperatives and not a world wide State, the cooperatives would lack of any organizated or sistematized political organization and of course any law. Now the main element is the lack of State, wich is what I also suppose in my proposition. However if you look at the actual configuration of international society today, you'll see that even when there's a vast legal frame, collection of principles and practice of a variety of customs, there's no world wide State. Why is this? Because it lacks of one of the main characteristics of the State as it is: coertion. And that still stands for what I'm describing. Imagine it as the same you see today, but with a document/instrument that says "I'm an human, therefore I'm a citizen of the world". If you see more than simbolism there then we've a problem.

    NOTE: The form of anarchy described above is, in a nutshell, only what Bakunin and his followers say. There are other forms of anarchism, wich are in some ways also imposible to practice, one of them is communism, wich I'm not suggesting either, and would mean a kind of return to the natural state and a community of goods. Not all anarchism supposes community of goods.
    Born On The Flames

  10. #10
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    Not really. You already are an human, as such from this perspective you're entitled to some rights. The Cosmopolitan Certificate is more simbolic, as I said, a simbolic way of formalizing that Status.
    Then the answer remains no - symbolic status such as this are worth absolutely nothing.

    *What does "tap-danced" means?*
    An answer that does not address the actual question.


    Wide world anarchy would be something different. Perhaps I should define it to let the differences show up. A world wide anarchy would suppose a world wide federation of little cooperatives (wich is exactly what Bakunin wanted), this cooperatives should end with politic nationalism (wich means making nationalism a matter of state and also identifying the nation with the State), the cooperatives should rule by themselves in an horizontal plane, the cooperatives should also be united to form this federation wich only supposes a cooperation between the cooperatives and not a world wide State, the cooperatives would lack of any organizated or sistematized political organization and of course any law. Now the main element is the lack of State, wich is what I also suppose in my proposition. However if you look at the actual configuration of international society today, you'll see that even when there's a vast legal frame, collection of principles and practice of a variety of customs, there's no world wide State. Why is this? Because it lacks of one of the main characteristics of the State as it is: coertion. And that still stands for what I'm describing. Imagine it as the same you see today, but with a document/instrument that says "I'm an human, therefore I'm a citizen of the world". If you see more than simbolism there then we've a problem.
    I would suggest that your definition of cosmopolitan then is not consistent with the current meaning of the world, nor is your definition of anarchy consistent with your attempt at defining cosmopolitan as a purely symbolic measure. Your mixing your apples and oranges together and attempting to convince me that they are really bananas.


    NOTE: The form of anarchy described above is, in a nutshell, only what Bakunin and his followers say. There are other forms of anarchism, wich are in some ways also imposible to practice, one of them is communism, wich I'm not suggesting either, and would mean a kind of return to the natural state and a community of goods. Not all anarchism supposes community of goods.
    Which also demonstrates well why anarchy as a political system has not been successful in the modern world, where men no longer formed societies consisting of wondering nomadic hunter-gathers of ancient times. Anarchy is a failed political movement in the modern era of man.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  11. #11
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    Yes it's a necessity of modern days, the bureau is a necessity not the cracy part. However I'm not suggesting the creation of a new system, the local fabric and mechanic could very well be used by the person who wants a "certificate".

    A world wide bureaucracy would only require an administrative and executive power. But again I'm not suggesting that.
    There is an important example in the history of North America that displays very clearly why the idea that a Confederation where states abandon legislative power--such as necessary to give legitimacy to a worldwide guarantee that seems to be your topic--while keeping judicial and executive power doesn't work.

    The Articles of Confederation was a total failure in American history. The states refuse to follow Congress' laws; Congress, lacking in executive and judicial power, can do squat to enforce it.

    One could also consider the occasional failures of international treaties to be of the same effect. If the USA refuses to follow the Geneva Convention--which, sadly, it shows sign of trying to--then the United Nations can do squat about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    Yes as it's the idea of the Cosmopolitan becoming more than metaphysics. However I abhor the idea of a world wide State as you could imagine.
    Then what definition are you using for the word "cosmopolitan?"

    I'm arguing from the assumption that cosmopolitan means something international, "beyond national sovereignty," or something of such nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    I think it's more a display of them following the mainstream idea that the Constitution is above all other law. I hold the opinion that International Law, particularily respecting Human Rights, once ratified are at the same height of any Constitutional clause. And I fully agree with you. The idea that the citizenship grants you the benefit of psico-physic integrity was always wrong and even more now with the formalized obligation of a great part of the world in the international principles.
    Then that would abridged the legal status of many treaties. Many countries hold that their Constitution is above all other laws--sovereignty, by definition--and they adhere to international treaties only voluntarily. The treaties are made with such in mind.

    That's why I'm saying that, for your original idea to have any practical use, it would require a worldwide governmental apparatus of some kind--a far-fetched possibility at the moment. Essentially, sovereignty will have to transfer from national level to global level; an arrangement virtually impossible to make. I deduct from your post that you want (practical) sovereignty to transfer back to the individual instead. That, frankly, doesn't work; you'll have to debate me on that point, if you disagree.

    Right now such a "promise" as a "certificate" would be broken the moment a warlord in Africa decides he doesn't want Western support any longer. The best solution at the moment to such inherent greed and selfishness is the creation of an atmosphere where nations will benefit more from upholding basic principles of human rights than abridging it. A hard task in and of itself; one which many wants the superpower USA to pursue, by the way.

    Side note: I guess being a citizen of no country (applied for US, at least three years away) makes me quite offended when a person claims something of a superior right--not just privilege--based on his or her citizenship alone, and make me something of a multi-culturalist also.

  12. #12
    Nobody Important Member Somebody Else's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    At her Majesty's service
    Posts
    2,445

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    I'll take a cosmopolitan. Though I prefer a martini...
    Don't have any aspirations - they're doomed to fail.

    Rumours...

  13. #13

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    No, in the 'citizen of the world' sense.

  14. #14
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Then the answer remains no - symbolic status such as this are worth absolutely nothing.
    The benefits that it gives you are already there, but it would serve as an instrument of proof only as bureaucracy goes.
    I would suggest that your definition of cosmopolitan then is not consistent with the current meaning of the world...
    That's interesting, what do you propose then.
    nor is your definition of anarchy consistent with your attempt at defining cosmopolitan as a purely symbolic measure.
    My definition of anarchy is perfectly consistent with anarchy, and cosmopolitan is not a measure is a conception of the human being.
    Your mixing your apples and oranges together and attempting to convince me that they are really bananas.
    First you should establish what's the apple and the orange in this case, and what's the banana too.
    Which also demonstrates well why anarchy as a political system has not been successful in the modern world, where men no longer formed societies consisting of wondering nomadic hunter-gathers of ancient times. Anarchy is a failed political movement in the modern era of man.
    If you think that natural state in politics is anything near nomadism then I fear we're talking about different concepts. The natural state I'm talking about only refers to the hypotetical moment inmediatly before the creation of the State.
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiochus
    The Articles of Confederation was a total failure in American history. The states refuse to follow Congress' laws; Congress, lacking in executive and judicial power, can do squat to enforce it.
    You said bureaucracy. In an State wich has a bureaucracy as a form of government the only two necessary powers are the one wich administrates the persons and the one wich executes orders from that power, applies coaction and dictates. Judicial power is of no use because everything is determined in a summary way, sintactic. Imagine the movie "Brazil", that's what I'm talking about.
    One could also consider the occasional failures of international treaties to be of the same effect. If the USA refuses to follow the Geneva Convention--which, sadly, it shows sign of trying to--then the United Nations can do squat about it.
    And let's hope it remains that way. That's what it's called United Nations, a given State can remain linked to the pact if he wants or it can abandon it. But it's sad anyway...
    I'm arguing from the assumption that cosmopolitan means something international, "beyond national sovereignty," or something of such nature.
    Not necessarily. The concept of national sovereignty is irrelevant for the issue. The idea of the cosmopolitan has to do with the belonging of all humans or a given group of humans (for example: only the good ones) to an universal community in wich they're all equal and are subject to the same natural order. The concept of sovereignty in all its forms is far much more recent than the idea of the cosmopolitan.
    Then that would abridged the legal status of many treaties. Many countries hold that their Constitution is above all other laws--sovereignty, by definition--and they adhere to international treaties only voluntarily. The treaties are made with such in mind.
    Not necessarily. Sovereignty is an adjetive in this days given to a certain social order or State. The main idea is that this order shouldn't recognize in the same territory any other positive order superior to itself. Recognizing a parallel order isn't recognizing a superior order. My country also holds that idea in part of the doctrine, but other part of the doctrine is begining to say: the idea of the superiority of any of those orders is absurd. One is the pact to the people in the State the other is the pact made with other States and both are reprehensible, as such both have to be respected at the same level, even more if they constitute rights for the humans and not the citizens. There cannot be contradiction, wich means an armonic interpretation of both orders (constitutional and conventional) in a plane of equivalence.
    That's why I'm saying that, for your original idea to have any practical use, it would require a worldwide governmental apparatus of some kind--a far-fetched possibility at the moment. Essentially, sovereignty will have to transfer from national level to global level; an arrangement virtually impossible to make. I deduct from your post that you want (practical) sovereignty to transfer back to the individual instead. That, frankly, doesn't work; you'll have to debate me on that point, if you disagree.
    That's not what I'm saying. The idea of a sovereign individual is absurd. I'm talking about an official recognition of your pertenence to the human especies. As I said it was sarcastic in part. No need to create a super statal order to make that effective since the benefits that it gives should have been operative for years now in the countries wich signed certain pacts in good faith.
    Side note: I guess being a citizen of no country (applied for US, at least three years away) makes me quite offended when a person claims something of a superior right--not just privilege--based on his or her citizenship alone, and make me something of a multi-culturalist also.
    I understand your feelings and I'm arguing from the same position. I find that idea absurd in this days and it's not substantiated since we, as the human race, officialized this view of all humans are equal and have some inherent rights as such.
    Last edited by Soulforged; 10-10-2006 at 03:40.
    Born On The Flames

  15. #15
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    The idea of the cosmopolitan has to do with the belonging of all humans or a given group of humans (for example: only the good ones) to an universal community in wich they're all equal and are subject to the same natural order.
    Being all equal and subject to natural order are contradictions.

    a) We are not all equal.

    b) We already are subject to natural order and no matter what certificates, laws or military force we use, we will always be subject to natural order... so it's a bit pointless getting a certificate to say we are part of something that we always without exception part of. The natural order of things includes that we are all different and hence all non-equal. Even if we cloned everyone from the same parent organism there would be differences, even identical twins have variations in height, weight, abilities (much less then the rest of the population but it still exists).
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  16. #16
    Mystic Bard Member Soulforged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Another Skald
    Posts
    2,138

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    Being all equal and subject to natural order are contradictions.
    Natural order means the order inmanent from nature. Like for example: some people are born to be slaves, like Aristotle said. The idea of the cosmopolitan is that old. The first to propose it was Zenon in my knowledge. His idea was that the human, only for that, belongs to a community wich is subject to an unique natural order, wich premise is: all humans (or citizens if you want) are equal. This means nothing makes an human socially superior to another human. This idea inspired Alexander the Great to conquer the known world and make all humans citizens of a single empire, trying to make it more metaphysic than what it really is. Natural law as in biology could and still can generate social propositions, however the concept is academically conflictive because of the reason you just wrote, it denotes two different concepts, one is the law inmanent from nature, the other is the law derived from scientific theories through the method of biology, the first is doctrinarial the second is theoretical.
    Born On The Flames

  17. #17
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Doctrinarial is worthless if it tries and legalislates against what the natural world is. No matter the amount of red tape, gravity is still gravity.

    It is far better to design a system that works in symbiosis with the natural world rather then against it.

    I would argue that we are all not equal, but for equal output we deserve equal reward. The first is nature, red in claw, the second part is in alignment with it but can also be legalislated for. For instance if a women's output of labour or inventions are equal to a man then they deserve equal compensation, same applies regardless of age, race, beliefs or disabilities.

    Then next stage is to use legislation to increase the ability of all to perform and to fullfill social contracts.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  18. #18
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Cosmopolitan

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
    The benefits that it gives you are already there, but it would serve as an instrument of proof only as bureaucracy goes.
    My passport as a citizen of the United States gives me the benefits that I need and use.

    That's interesting, what do you propose then.
    THe definition that is inherient in the word.


    My definition of anarchy is perfectly consistent with anarchy, and cosmopolitan is not a measure is a conception of the human being.
    I disagree on both counts. Care to guess how many forms of anarchy exist? Care to guess how many of them are still ongoing as successful political idealogue?

    First you should establish what's the apple and the orange in this case, and what's the banana too.
    Alreadly done - since I used the comparison alreadly.

    If you think that natural state in politics is anything near nomadism then I fear we're talking about different concepts. The natural state I'm talking about only refers to the hypotetical moment inmediatly before the creation of the State.
    You mis-read the statement - try again.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO