closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 77

Thread: Is it a Rolex or an Everest?

  1. #1

    Is it a Rolex or an Everest?

    Tough to say. I will let M4tt analyze the lug shape from this grainy image and render his final verdict.
    Analysis of the inscriptions on case back to come at a later date.

    Just kidding
    It is a D Blue for those who didn't know.
    The question is - did he 'carry' it to Augusta? And if so,how?
    Because multiple images on the last hole do not show a watch on his wrist:-)
    Hope you guys all enjoyed the final day at the Masters.

    Last edited by RAJEN; 15th April 2019 at 03:39.

  2. #2
    Woods is sponsored by Rolex. Like in F1, he slapped it on at the end to meet his commitments to Rolex, the same as the F1ís drivers do for their own sponsors.

    I actually bought a Rolex Yachtmaster which was gifted to a Spanish golfer whose name I cannot remember and it had his name on the papers. They often give out watches free to a number of the players at tournaments as they sponsor the timing. Most of these watches then get sold as they just donít want them.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by langdalematt View Post
    Woods is sponsored by Rolex. Like in F1, he slapped it on at the end to meet his commitments to Rolex, the same as the F1ís drivers do for their own sponsors.

    I actually bought a Rolex Yachtmaster which was gifted to a Spanish golfer whose name I cannot remember and it had his name on the papers. They often give out watches free to a number of the players at tournaments as they sponsor the timing. Most of these watches then get sold as they just donít want them.
    Probably to prominent golfers/sportsmen
    If it was Ballesteros or Olazabal or Garcia, I would be chuffed to own it.

  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Aberdeen. Scotland
    Posts
    1,269
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    Probably to prominent golfers/sportsmen
    If it was Ballesteros or Olazabal or Garcia, I would be chuffed to own it.
    Unbelievable win for Tiger. If youíve ever noticed most players do not wear a watch when playing, with the exception of Bubba Watson, but when the players are giving their post match media interview, they always have a watch on and generally make it really obvious to get the watch in camera range. Watch Rory next time, he discreetly scratches his nose to give the watch some air time.

    I bet their watch collection are amazing.......

  5. #5
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,248
    I reckon heíll get Star Baker for that one

  6. #6
    True. I think the swing and the impact of the club are not kind to watches.
    Tiger wears the D Blue most of the time when not playing

  7. #7
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    2,560
    Yeh I noticed the D blue on the 2nd day interview he did, it looked bloody thick, I also noticed quite a few golfers are sponsored by AP, nice life if your good enough..

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    So once again Rolex employ someone to wear a watch after they do something cool? I don’t need grainy images to see that picture...

    Sadly, this is actually something I can comment on. As a kid I spent years caddying at two rather well known Berkshire golf courses and the idea is that the variation of weight on your wrist spoils your swing. If you always wear the same Watch when playing golf, that’s fine. But variations in mass translate into a messed up swing.

    At at least that’s what I was told. My experience is that golfers are ridiculously superstitious and will happily blame anything but themselves when they lose their ball ... again.

    The fact is that you will not damage a watch with shock transmitted through your arm. You’ll be breaking yourself well before that happens.
    Last edited by M4tt; 15th April 2019 at 08:12.

  9. #9
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    774
    Hitting a ball around a field with a stick seems a quite novel way of by-passing the list at the AD.

  10. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    I reckon heíll get Star Baker for that one
    That made me laugh.....I would love to see Sandi Toksvig interview Tiger Woods.

  11. #11
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. OdiŠxere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    7,082
    Blog Entries
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    The fact is that you will not damage a watch with shock transmitted through your arm. You’ll be breaking yourself well before that happens.
    Agreed. Which is why I was not overtly bothered wielding a pick-axe to remove an old rose bush in the garden yesterday and realising I was still wearing my Aquanaut from the concert the previous day (see post earlier).

    I did however switch to the Casio soon after to haul the damn thing down to the bottom of the garden as those thorns are terribly scratchy.

    Golf? What is that - some sort of car?

    M

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    I reckon heíll get Star Baker for that one
    :-)))))

  13. #13
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Wixams, Beds
    Posts
    588
    Fit for purpose

  14. #14
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,188
    Talking of sports icons wearing Rolex... Rossi was sporting a Pepsi at the Americas GP press conference. (I did get a glimpse of the front) definitely a Pepsi..👍


  15. #15
    Craftsman Richard.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    Agreed. Which is why I was not overtly bothered wielding a pick-axe to remove an old rose bush in the garden yesterday and realising I was still wearing my Aquanaut from the concert the previous day (see post earlier).

    I did however switch to the Casio soon after to haul the damn thing down to the bottom of the garden as those thorns are terribly scratchy.

    Golf? What is that - some sort of car?

    M
    I managed to do some damage to a Patek 5980 movement by banging some stakes into the ground. (I used a mallet, not the watch!)

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard. View Post
    I managed to do some damage to a Patek 5980 movement by banging some stakes into the ground. (I used a mallet, not the watch!)
    Agreed
    My IWC started losing time after playing golf with it on.
    I read the manual after this and it specifically states not to wear it for impact sports.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood View Post
    Agreed
    My IWC started losing time after playing golf with it on.
    I read the manual after this and it specifically states not to wear it for impact sports.

    I'd have taken that to mean boxing or rugby. Unless you have it on the head of the club there isn't much impact during a round of golf.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    So once again Rolex employ someone to wear a watch after they do something cool? I donít need grainy images to see that picture...
    The marketing monster in full flow.

  19. #19
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by kace View Post
    I'd have taken that to mean boxing or rugby. Unless you have it on the head of the club there isn't much impact during a round of golf.
    Thereís a huge amount of impact


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  20. #20
    Grand Master Andyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    21,270
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    So once again Rolex employ someone to wear a watch after they do something cool? I donít need grainy images to see that picture...

    Sadly, this is actually something I can comment on. As a kid I spent years caddying at two rather well known Berkshire golf courses and the idea is that the variation of weight on your wrist spoils your swing. If you always wear the same Watch when playing golf, thatís fine. But variations in mass translate into a messed up swing.

    At at least thatís what I was told. My experience is that golfers are ridiculously superstitious and will happily blame anything but themselves when they lose their ball ... again.

    The fact is that you will not damage a watch with shock transmitted through your arm. Youíll be breaking yourself well before that happens.

    I think you will find that Tiger was doing "cool" stuff long before this. In fact wasn't he sponsored by Tag for years. Could it just be that his DSSD was a personal watch - something his bought himself or was a gift from a friend or family (maybe his late father?).

    As for the rest of your post. Nonsense. I very much doubt these guys swinging at 120+ mph, a watch wouldn't make any difference to their swing. It didn't seem effect golfers like Phil Michelson, who often switched between wearing an watch one round, and not the next round. As for superstition maybe, however that's as stretch, given that most pros switch clubs, putters, even ball types, etc, etc, at the drop of a hat.

    However the best reasons I have heard for people not wearing a watch is

    a) because it would leave tan lines,
    b)) a watch (especially worn tight) can get a bit hot and sweaty
    c) it can interfere with getting stuff out of pockets - which golfers do a lot - especially tees and markers
    d) most golfers wear a glove, which gets put on/taken off after every shot. The hand that wears the glove is the usually the same which most people would wear their watch.
    e) Finally, why would professional golfers be interested in wearing a watch, just a distraction. Its not as if they cannot get the time by asking their caddy or looking up at the score boards.


    These days lots a golfers have switched their watch for a wrist GPS device - time AND distance.

    Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
    Friedrich Nietzsche


  21. #21
    There's a Smiths for every occasion

    https://www.mwrforum.net/forums/show...burning-bright

    Shame it's from a cricket club rather than a golf club but if it had been a crown green bowls club it would have been a Tiger's woods.

    Remember: in 1953 Smiths were a wholly in-house manufacture and the first to the summit of Everest when Rolex were just a casing-up and marketing outfit.

    (Gets coat and runs away. To Cheltenham.)

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    ...when Rolex were just a...marketing outfit.
    Some might say...

  23. #23
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    14,098
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Curta View Post
    I reckon heíll get Star Baker for that one
    <snort>

  24. #24
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    Iím perfectly happy for it to be nonsense. It certainly was received wisdom at Sunningdale quite a few decades ago. It also makes sense given how the motor nervous system processes a complex ballistic (the body not the ball) action. However, a few years caddying has given me a healthy distaste for the game, so Iíve not looked into it. Thereís an easy and lucrative research project there though.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    Some might say...
    Let's see: in 1953 Rolex didn't make movements, dials, bracelets or cases. At the same time Smiths made everything except the cases (although they later took that in-house). Early dials are almost certainly in-house but later out-sourced to Burford (the company, not the place). They even made their own jewels at their plant in Carfin, Scotland. Springs (main and hair) even oils. Possibly not screws (I'm not sure) and not the straps / bracelets.

    So, yes, Rolex were a casing-up outfit whereas Smiths were made complete eubaches, even supplying others (Benson, Garrard, Hermes et al.)

    This isn't a "some might say..." opinion, it's historical fact.

    At the same point in time, Omega, for example, were a manufacture and Rolex were not. They are now, but that's relatively recent development.

    Not not-picking nor fight-picking just stating the facts.

  26. #26
    Master bobbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Cossethay, England
    Posts
    5,512
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Let's see: in 1953 Rolex didn't make movements, dials, bracelets or cases. At the same time Smiths made everything except the cases (although they later took that in-house). Early dials are almost certainly in-house but later out-sourced to Burford (the company, not the place). They even made their own jewels at their plant in Carfin, Scotland. Springs (main and hair) even oils. Possibly not screws (I'm not sure) and not the straps / bracelets.

    So, yes, Rolex were a casing-up outfit whereas Smiths were made complete eubaches, even supplying others (Benson, Garrard, Hermes et al.)

    This isn't a "some might say..." opinion, it's historical fact.

    At the same point in time, Omega, for example, were a manufacture and Rolex were not. They are now, but that's relatively recent development.

    Not not-picking nor fight-picking just stating the facts.

    RAJEN having a Henry II moment about now...

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbee View Post
    RAJEN having a Henry II moment about now...
    Y'all be sure to a make a pilgrimage to the place of my martyrdom now, y'hear me?

    There's a tea room and gift shop and you can light a candle and everything.

  28. #28
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Let's see: in 1953 Rolex didn't make movements, dials, bracelets or cases. At the same time Smiths made everything except the cases (although they later took that in-house). Early dials are almost certainly in-house but later out-sourced to Burford (the company, not the place). They even made their own jewels at their plant in Carfin, Scotland. Springs (main and hair) even oils. Possibly not screws (I'm not sure) and not the straps / bracelets.

    So, yes, Rolex were a casing-up outfit whereas Smiths were made complete eubaches, even supplying others (Benson, Garrard, Hermes et al.)

    This isn't a "some might say..." opinion, it's historical fact.

    At the same point in time, Omega, for example, were a manufacture and Rolex were not. They are now, but that's relatively recent development.

    Not not-picking nor fight-picking just stating the facts.
    In 1953 Rolex didn't make movements either. These were made by Aegler S.A. While Aegler were, from the thirties, sole supplier to Rolex, they were an entirely separate company and remained so until astonishingly recently.

    More to the point, the movement found sitting under the A296 had scarcely changed from the Aegler 'Rebberg' movement found in many a Gruen Verithin among others. It's apparently one route to some unavailable parts for early Rolex watches!

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbee View Post
    RAJEN having a Henry II moment about now...
    Expectedly, I don't get the Henry II cultural reference:-)
    If you are referring to M4tt and Rev-O's responses, I actually enjoy them.
    Both know what they are talking about and Rev-O's passion for all things Smith is laudable ( inspite of my difference of opinion on the OTHER thread)
    I quite like Rolex but it is nowhere near what Rev-O feels for Smiths.
    As for some others who repeatedly make snarky comments about Rolex marketing, I pity them:-)

    I have developed a healthy respect for Smiths and am kind of sad they gave up on watches with the Quartz revolution. Who knows we might be looking at a strong British presence in watches today had they persisted.
    Last edited by RAJEN; 17th April 2019 at 08:31.

  30. #30
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    Ahem:












    We all have our grails


  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Let's see: in 1953 Rolex didn't make movements, dials, bracelets or cases. At the same time Smiths made everything except the cases (although they later took that in-house). Early dials are almost certainly in-house but later out-sourced to Burford (the company, not the place). They even made their own jewels at their plant in Carfin, Scotland. Springs (main and hair) even oils. Possibly not screws (I'm not sure) and not the straps / bracelets.

    So, yes, Rolex were a casing-up outfit whereas Smiths were made complete eubaches, even supplying others (Benson, Garrard, Hermes et al.)

    This isn't a "some might say..." opinion, it's historical fact.

    At the same point in time, Omega, for example, were a manufacture and Rolex were not. They are now, but that's relatively recent development.

    Not not-picking nor fight-picking just stating the facts.
    You've got the wrong end of the stick so comprehensively that I can only conclude you have done so on purpose.

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    You've got the wrong end of the stick so comprehensively that I can only conclude you have done so on purpose.
    Do go on. Care to refute me with facts?

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Do go on. Care to refute me with facts?
    And aggressive with it.

    My "some might say..." comment was alluding to the fact that you could argue Rolex was a marketing company that happens to make watches. I would not be surprised to learn the headcount in their marketing department was significantly larger than employees tasked with watch manufacture.

    But well done, in any case. You know things, and have to tell someone. You look very clever.
    Last edited by HenPecked; 17th April 2019 at 09:44.

  34. #34
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    And aggressive with it.

    My "some might say..." comment was alluding to the fact that you could argue Rolex was a marketing company that happens to make watches. I would not be surprised to learn the headcount in their marketing department was significantly larger than employees tasked with watch manufacture.

    But well done, in any case. You know things, and have to tell someone that you. You look very clever.
    This is going to go well...

  35. #35
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    5,775
    For the first couple of decades or so, Rolex were not in the business of manufacture at all. They offered a brand and specifications and other people made stuff for them. Not so much in house as outhouse. This changed slowly until, in 2004, they finally brought movement production in house and became a true manufacture.
    In '53 it was still perfectly possible to buy a Dennison cased, Aegler powered Rolex which was still entirely oursourced.

  36. #36
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    156
    This is like watching a well stocked trout river on a misty morning, during a biblical plague of flies.

  37. #37
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Cartagena, Spain
    Posts
    7,961
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    This is like watching a well stocked trout river on a misty morning, during a biblical plague of flies.
    like it.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    This is like watching a well stocked trout river on a misty morning, during a biblical plague of flies.
    Is this your first day on the internet?

  39. #39
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    Is this your first day on the internet?
    My comment referred to the OP's very first post, and how successful it was. Nothing else.

  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    My comment referred to the OP's very first post, and how successful it was. Nothing else.
    OK. To clear up confusion, it's usually helpful to quote the comment (or part of the comment) you're referring to.

    HTH.

  41. #41
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
    Talking of sports icons wearing Rolex... Rossi was sporting a Pepsi at the Americas GP press conference. (I did get a glimpse of the front) definitely a Pepsi..

    He has a white dialed ceramic Daytona which he wears a LOT. Far more than mere sponsorship would dictate, so he clearly likes it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    Tough to say. I will let M4tt analyze the lug shape from this grainy image and render his final verdict.
    Analysis of the inscriptions on case back to come at a later date.

    Just kidding
    It is a D Blue for those who didn't know.
    The question is - did he 'carry' it to Augusta? And if so,how?
    Because multiple images on the last hole do not show a watch on his wrist:-)
    Hope you guys all enjoyed the final day at the Masters.

    Just my opinion, but I'd say that looks too big on him.

  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    This is like watching a well stocked trout river on a misty morning, during a biblical plague of flies.
    Are you a fly fisherman Mark? I love it. This weekend looks v promising on the rivers. Dead drift a dry with a degreased leader, canít beat it.

  43. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by M4tt View Post
    For the first couple of decades or so, Rolex were not in the business of manufacture at all. They offered a brand and specifications and other people made stuff for them. Not so much in house as outhouse. This changed slowly until, in 2004, they finally brought movement production in house and became a true manufacture.
    In '53 it was still perfectly possible to buy a Dennison cased, Aegler powered Rolex which was still entirely oursourced.
    Gay Freres bracelets too.

    Hey, we know things. Well done us. And when we donít, we donít comment although we might ask.

  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    And aggressive with it.

    My "some might say..." comment was alluding to the fact that you could argue Rolex was a marketing company that happens to make watches. I would not be surprised to learn the headcount in their marketing department was significantly larger than employees tasked with watch manufacture.

    But well done, in any case. You know things, and have to tell someone. You look very clever.
    OK, let's recap.

    In post 21 I posted some facts, as I believe them to be true ("in 1953 Smiths were a wholly in-house manufacture and the first to the summit of Everest when Rolex were just a casing-up and marketing outfit."

    You replied (post 22) by quoting seven of my words and adding the comment "Some might say..."

    No facts, no rebuttal or refutation.

    So I came back with more information (post 25).

    All good, right? Wrong! You then make the bald statement that not only have I "got the wrong end of the stick" but I have done it "so comprehensively that I can only conclude you have done so on purpose." (Post 31)

    Again, facts, no rebuttal or refutation. Just a flat rejection and a little ad hominem dig at the end, to barb the hook.

    But I rose to the fly! "Do go on. Care to refute me with facts?" (post 32)

    And yet it's me being "aggressive"? Umm OK.

    "you could argue Rolex was a marketing company that happens to make watches."

    Well, no, you couldn't. I went to some lengths to show you that they didn't make watches.

    "I would not be surprised to learn the headcount in their marketing department was significantly larger than employees tasked with watch manufacture."

    Any number is larger than zero.

    "But well done, in any case. You know things, and have to tell someone. You look very clever."

    Sigh.

    Some people (including me) have done a lot of research and most of it available online. Unless this is your first day on the internet you should learn to read before you write.

  45. #45
    Master Mr Curta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Mainly UK
    Posts
    8,248
    Chillax

  46. #46
    I feel two of you are on the same side of argument, more or less.

  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    OK, let's recap.

    In post 21 I posted some facts, as I believe them to be true ("in 1953 Smiths were a wholly in-house manufacture and the first to the summit of Everest when Rolex were just a casing-up and marketing outfit."

    You replied (post 22) by quoting seven of my words and adding the comment "Some might say..."

    No facts, no rebuttal or refutation.

    So I came back with more information (post 25).

    All good, right? Wrong! You then make the bald statement that not only have I "got the wrong end of the stick" but I have done it "so comprehensively that I can only conclude you have done so on purpose." (Post 31)

    Again, facts, no rebuttal or refutation. Just a flat rejection and a little ad hominem dig at the end, to barb the hook.

    But I rose to the fly! "Do go on. Care to refute me with facts?" (post 32)

    And yet it's me being "aggressive"? Umm OK.

    "you could argue Rolex was a marketing company that happens to make watches."

    Well, no, you couldn't. I went to some lengths to show you that they didn't make watches.

    "I would not be surprised to learn the headcount in their marketing department was significantly larger than employees tasked with watch manufacture."

    Any number is larger than zero.

    "But well done, in any case. You know things, and have to tell someone. You look very clever."

    Sigh.

    Some people (including me) have done a lot of research and most of it available online. Unless this is your first day on the internet you should learn to read before you write.
    Once again, YOU are choosing to take everything in absolutely the wrong way. I don't know why you're getting so worked up about it. I don't give a toss that Rolex didn't used to make watches. They do now. But what they do BEST is marketing. That is my point. And one that you seem intent on deliberately trying to miss again and again in the most aggressive way possible. I would ask why, but I don't care. Just calm down.

  48. #48
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    CIRENCESTER, UK
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Are you a fly fisherman Mark? I love it. This weekend looks v promising on the rivers. Dead drift a dry with a degreased leader, canít beat it.
    I did a little fly fishing as a youngster many, many moons ago and liked it but not since, it is certainly preferable to "a good walk spoiled" for me. I would worry about the repeated casting and flicking having an impact on a non-shockprotected SmithS though, and the threat of water ingress on a SmithS diver! ;-))

    I did hear that female fly fisher(wo)men are often very successful and this has been attributed by some to keeping their beautifully made flies in the knicker drawer! Do trout like Persil I wonder or do the fairer sex who fly fish have a 'special' drawer?

    Not that I am trying to change the subject....

  49. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    Do trout like Persil I wonder or do the fairer sex who fly fish have a 'special' drawer?
    Now that has made me laugh.

    Remind me of the old saying: the way to a fisherman's heart is through his flies.

  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by HenPecked View Post
    what they do BEST is marketing.
    Now that, I think, we can all agree on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •