VisorCentral.com - (In)Decision 2000 Discussion

VisorCentral.com >> Discussion >> Other Areas of Interest >> Off Topic
(In)Decision 2000 Discussion


	Post a New Thread \| Post A Reply

Pages (7): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Topic: (In)Decision 2000 Discussion Pages (7): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »

Winchell
Member

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Baltimore MD, USA
Posts: 717

quote:
Originally posted by homer
The Ballot in Florida WAS poorly designed and confusing.
What went wrong is that the ballots were never user tested. This is a critical part of the argument. Had they user tested them they may have easily found out that yes, the ballots are poorly designed.

I tend to agree with you.
For all the talk about how "they use the same system in other places", any system that results in the need to toss out nineteen thousand votes is totally unacceptable.
For that matter, one of the experts was quoted as stating that the punch card system is inherently flawed. He said that if you ran the cards through the counter ten time you would get seven different answers. Which one is the correct one?

It's the 21st century, people. We shouldn't be using forty year old obsolete technology in the first place.
If they used some kind of computer balloting device that used radio buttons, it would be impossible to do things like accidentally vote for two candidates. And we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
We are not talking rocket science here, any bright 12 year old could write a web page that could do it.

11-10-2000 07:59 PM

yardie
Member

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571

US better tha Canadian System IMO

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Hoser...could you fill us in on how the Canadian election work?

From my understanding, Canada calls for a new election every so often. They then give candidates a month to campaign and then they elect.

Is that the jist of it? It sounds like such a nice, simply system.

How do you feel the Canadian system compares to the US system?

Well I live in Canada, so I know how the Canadian system work. What we have in Canada is a 4 - 5 year elected dictatorship,. The Prime Minister of the land has all the power (appoint judges, ambassadors etc without consultation with anyone)but yet is only voted in by ONE district (we called them "Riding"). The U.S at least has checks and balances between the different parts of government. One more interesting thing. It is possible for a person to become Prime Minister of Canada without being elected by anyone but their party members at all! The Senate is appointed by The Prime Minister, as does the Governor General which Represents the Queen (of England) who is the Constitutional Head of Canada.

11-10-2000 08:02 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by Winchell
I fear that you are jumping to conclusions by asserting that he did win. The vote cannot be certified until all the absentee ballots are in, especially all the ones from Floridians visiting Israel who favor Joe Lieberman.

Is there any actual proof that such Floridians exist in significant numbers?

quote:
In any event, I find it difficult to believe that folks like you would not be screaming about how unfair it all is, were the tables turned.

The tables have been "turned" in that direction at least twice in the last 40 years. In both cases, the Republican stepped aside for the common good. Ironic that one of those had a Daley enmeshed in it as well.

quote:
They are American Voters, just like you.

Nope. My guy lost, and I don't get to call a re-vote.

quote:
They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

Which suggests that they should have known what the ballot looked like and how to use it beforehand.

quote:
As far as pressure goes, after watching those crowds of furious senior citizens yelling at the TV camera, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anybody who prevents them from re-voting.

Well...

quote:
They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

quote:
I don't think you understand.
At my job, we have to keep in touch with universities and high schools around the country. We spoke with a lot of people in Florida around the areas of controversy.

They are talking race riots.

So what? It's about time that fear of race riots stops overriding the laws.

quote:
The local minorities are very, very angry.

Are they not supposed to follow the law like everyone else?

quote:
And everything is just pouring more gasoline on the flames.

Including treating them like spoiled children about to throw a temper tantrum if they don't get their way.

quote:
I don't want to even think about what the whacko Militia groups are going to do.

I imagine the same thing as the whacko race rioters?

quote:
Just don't go near any large Federal buildings with suspicious looking trucks parked outside.

To quote Al Gore, "*sigh*".

quote:
In the meantime, whichever of the two candidates becomes president, they will quickly discover that Washington DC is like swimming with the sharks.

I hear that Al Gore invented that.

11-10-2000 08:16 PM

LanMan
Member

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 295

I knew that this forum would heat up once it was moved from VC.com to Off Topic.

quote:
I find it difficult to believe that folks like you would not be screaming about how unfair it all is, were the tables turned.

I�m not sure what you mean by �folks like you�, but I assume you are referring to whom I voted for. I make no bones about my political affiliation. I voted Republican. However, should the tables be turned I would still understand and accept that a revote is unconstitutional.

quote:
I don't think you understand.

I understand perfectly! I understand that if we ignore our constitution then the whole point of a Presidential election is moot! That then makes this whole debate pointless. If there were discriminations in Florida, then that will be up to the Florida judicial system to try. They are not germane to this election.

quote:
In the meantime, whichever of the two candidates becomes president, they will quickly discover that Washington DC is like swimming with the sharks.

Presidents are used to swimming with sharks. I fact many are the BIGGEST sharks on the Hill themselves. Where do you think they came up with the idea for the Jaws movies?

__________________
<><

11-10-2000 08:21 PM

homer
Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

quote:

This ballot style has been used in those counties for several years and for many elections. If it's truly a problem it should have been corrected. At this point and time I think it's a case of sour grapes.

Actually, I've just read that there is a bigger issue. Apparently the ballots have holes pre-punched in them that you use to align the ballet with the candidates. I guess THESE were incorrect so that even though you were punching the hole next to the candidate, the punch-sheet was misligned, so, in fact, you were voting for someone else. This is a much bigger problem, if it is true.

The bottom line is that it appears that there are a LOT of problems with the Florida system. It probably hasn't been an issue before because in the past, the election in Florida wasn't this close before and that the margin of error, while great, wasn't as big of a deal.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

11-10-2000 08:47 PM

matty
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 268

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
quote:
Originally posted by Winchell

[QUOTE]I don't think you understand.
At my job, we have to keep in touch with universities and high schools around the country. We spoke with a lot of people in Florida around the areas of controversy.

They are talking race riots.

So what? It's about time that fear of race riots stops overriding the laws.

quote:
The local minorities are very, very angry.

Are they not supposed to follow the law like everyone else?

toby -- the minorities are not angry because their man (theoretically) lost... they are angry because they were illegaly denied their constitutional voting rights. they're not the lawbreakers in this situation, the board of elections is. minorities were turned away at the polls, due to not enough ballots and lack of linguistic assistance. it's not supposed to work like that.

winchell and homer, i'm glad to be in your company, by the way.

here's some funny things i've noted about this mess:

a) it may not come to it at this time -- we'll have to see how hard jesse j. and his mates work down there -- but i think this is actually more scandalous than we are willing as a country to admit to ourselves. the shrub was awful sure of himself when florida first went to gore... awful sure. a little too sure if you ask me. then, if you read the piecemeal transcripts of the recanted consession, you find something along the lines of this:

w: let me get this straight, you're retracting your consession?

ag: you don't have to get snippy.

w: my brother just assured me that florida was mine.

ag: let me explain something to you: your younger brother is not the controlling authority here.

assured me that florida was mine? um, in fact our man is right, the governor can make no such assurances, unless he had a hand (his right, no doubt, and an illegal one at that) in that palm beach vote fiasco. let's not forget the man's father was the head of the cia . i'm thinking revote. without one, we've got full bore bushgate on our hands. can't you just see the three of them behind a closed door in the texas governor's mansion, snickering, while babs hurls invectives at reporters who want to know why there's laughing back there when it looks like gore has the thing all sewn up?

b) the electoral college seems never to have worked exactly as the framers wanted it too... i mean they wanted it so that small states don't get left out of the fray, (and because the common man then, as now, was a little scary) but since about 1820 or so, the electors have been chosen by the parties, which means that they vote down party lines anyway, so it's pretty much unfair from the getgo. apparently in a coupla socialist countries like ireland and australia, they have a popular vote system where you vote for your first and second choice... then they break it down to the two frontrunners, and add the second choices in, basically giving you an automatic run-off... because the electoral tie going to the house is again unfair, as the house is now so politicized. here's the thing, though. if it became clear that there was an actual popular vote, and turnout increased by say 50%, we wouldn't be any better off... that's 50% more voter error, 50% more network speculation, and 50% more votes that you actually have to count (which apparently isn't how it works in florida, seeing as the recount so far shows gore to have made up about 1400 -- out of 1750 mind you -- votes.) but, if the shrub wins, i might rethink, because it'll be the first time in 100+ years, and then benji harrison was the new president, defeating incumbent g clevelend, which the people obviously didn't like, because four years later they reelected cleveland... plus 12 years before that, there was a big ol' electoral miscarriage, it went to the house which stalemated, so there had to be a special committe appointed, and everyone on the committee voted republican, and then rb hayes won.

here's another weird electoral fact that seemingly no one has picked up on... the first time we got into this kinda trouble (not counting the jefferson, adams, burr thing which had to do with candidates not picking running mates...) was with none other than j q adams, as in the only potus whose father was also president... (he was picked by the house, without an electoral majority, bcause he lobbied for rival henry clay's congressional buddies' support, and got it.)

but here's the thing... every time anything like this this has happened (even with the really close, if uncontested, elections of 1960, 68, 76) , every single time, the guy who was elected only served one full term (if that much) which says to me there's a reason why they almost didn't make it in the first place...

i also agree with james and the dark cloud over whichever poor shmo's head makes it in there. he's not gonna be the first to outlive the above legacy. so, flamers get ready...

i'm looking forward to a clinton presidency in 2004... that's the now senator, of course

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

11-10-2000 08:51 PM

JHromadka
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

At this point, regardless of who is elected, they're presidency is already tainted. I think it is an interesting point that that ballot form has been used before.

By FL law there had to be a recount. Let the results of the recount stand.

Just out of curiosity, can the electoral college in FL vote for another candidate or do they have to follow the popular vote? Dec 17/18 could be interesting.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

11-10-2000 09:02 PM

VoxDei
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 195

PLANNING MY ADMINISTRATION

OK folks...

It seems to be fashionable for private citizens to start planning their administrations prior to the end of the election vote tabulation. Some call this arrogance. Some call this "presumption of self-coronation." I tend to refer to it as prudent, executive management.

You see...

Because the vote tabulations have been so close, no one knows which candidate has received the most votes until all votes have been counted in all states.

Because three well-meaning and politically disgusted friends expressed their disgust by casting votes for me for president, I am, therefore, in the running.

Therefore I may just be the next president, if all those absentee ballots break my way!

If anyone would like to work on my transition team, I'm taking assistance. And remember the slogan of my administration - A Prism in Every Pocket! (or are you just glad to see me?!)

__________________
We All Believe in Something. . .

<a href="http://www.beliefnet.com" target=_top><img src="http://www.beliefnet.com/imgs/beliefnet_logo_button.gif" border=0 align="absmiddle" width="75" height="16"></a>

11-10-2000 09:07 PM

matty
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 268

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka

Just out of curiosity, can the electoral college in FL vote for another candidate or do they have to follow the popular vote? Dec 17/18 could be interesting.

they can vote however they like... but they're nominated by the party and basically chosen on the grounds that they are of the party faithful. this would tend in the shrub's favor. but, the electoral vote though cast in mid december, is not tallied til january 6... we have a lot of waiting to do. also, like i said, close calls like this have been turned by lobbying... don't think the campaigning is over yet...

oh, as to the recount in wis and iowa, if gore's such an asshole to demand a hand recount in fla, why is the shrub so quick to threaten a recount in those other states? hypocrite pie, anyone?

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

11-10-2000 09:08 PM

VoxDei
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 195

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka
Just out of curiosity, can the electoral college in FL vote for another candidate or do they have to follow the popular vote? Dec 17/18 could be interesting.

Electors are not required to follow the popular vote, however they are chosen by the state political parties for their absolute loyalty to the party. For an elector to vote other than their popular vote would be for them to assume the position known as "Faith-less Elector."

And remember, originally there was nopopular vote. Electors were simply chosen and voted as they thought best. The also elected the US Senate. This changed with the 12th amendment.

11-10-2000 09:11 PM

JHromadka
VisorCentral Staff

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

Wow, that's quite a conspiracy theory Matty. Where did you hear that transcript of the 2nd phone call? I've only seen the first few lines up to the "snippy" retort.

As for the electoral college, as time has gone on, like you said, it is strictly partisan. It was supposed to help the smaller states, but what states get the most visits? FL, NY, CA, & TX. You get those and you can almost forget about the remaining states. If Al Gore would have won, he would have wone by winning only 20/50 states.

I wish that electoral votes would be apportioned based on % of popular vote. That way Bush would have gotten 12 FL votes, Gore 12 FL votes, and maybe Nader gets one. This would give 3rd parties a fighting chance. Say what you will about Perot, but it is a travesty that he got 19% of the popular vote in '92 but didn't get a single electoral vote.

And don't get me started about Hillary in NY. If that's not partisan I don't know what is. She moves to NY, lives there for 1 day and can run for senator? Can you say carpet bagger? I don't think anyone (R/D/I) should be able to live in a state for one day and run for public office. You have to live in TX for I believe 2 yrs before you can get residential college tuition prices -- this should apply to public office as well. Wonder why she didn't run in Arkansas?

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

11-10-2000 09:21 PM

LanMan
Member

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 295

James, which ever candidate wins Florida's popular vote, also wins all of Florida's Electoral College votes. That is of course presuming that the loser doesn't persuede some Electorates to vote for him instead. If Bush is declared the winner in Florida, then he will win 271 Electoral votes and the election. However, Gore may persuede two or more Electorates to vote for him instead. If only one vote shifts to Gore, then the count is 270 to 268, and Bush wins. However, if Gore shifts two votes then it becomes a dead heat 269-269 and will go to Congress for a decision. But if Gore talks three votes over to his side then Gore wins.

I hope this is settled soon. This is turning the economy, that Gore shows off like a trophy, on it's head.

__________________
<><

11-10-2000 09:22 PM

linguas
Member

Registered: Jun 2000
Location: South Lake, FL
Posts: 103

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
This was a legal ballot which had been in use for some time.

FWIW, the ballot itself isn't even legal - Florida law states that the candidate's name should appear on the left-hand side of the ballot, and the selection method should be to the right of said candidate;s name.
There are several different types of ballots used in Florida (the one I voted on was the fill-in-the-oval type,) most of which do adhere to this legal description - how the Palm Beach Co. ballot was ever put into use is beyond me.
I certainly have to agree that any ballot design that results in 19 thousand ballots being thrown out is far from acceptable!

__________________
Eschew obfuscation!

11-10-2000 09:36 PM

homer
Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

Hoser:

Thanks for the Canadian info. I'm 'half' Canadian (my mother has always retained her citizenship) and I am somwhat ashamed that I don't understand the system up there better.

quote:

i'm looking forward to a clinton presidency in 2004... that's the now senator, of course

I've been back and forth on this one myself. At first I thought it was absurd...she never lived in NY, why should she represent it? That said, NY, itself, voted her in to represent them, so who's to argue that?

Ultimately, if that get's our country closer to a woman presidential candidate, more power to her!

quote:

Just out of curiosity, can the electoral college in FL vote for another candidate or do they have to follow the popular vote?

As already mentioned, no, they can vote for whoever they want. In fact, some have speculated that if Gore gets the popular vote, some of the electorates may very well switch their vote to Gore.

I don't think that all electorates are strincly partisan. Each state appoints their electors in different ways. Some are assigned by the Governor, some are elected by popular votes, some are appointed by committee. This is my understanding...I could be wrong.

Anyways, how does everyone think this could be fixed, hypothetically? I think the best options would be one or more of the following:

1) a NONE OF THE ABOVE category. Russia has this. If NONE of the ABOVE wins, the election is nulled and a new one has to take place.

2) Allow each voter to rank their votes. IE, vote for first choice, second choice, etc... Had we allowed this, it would have erased all doubt about the Nader stealing Gore votes/Gore stealing Nader votes.

Thoughts?

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

11-10-2000 09:53 PM

matty
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 268

i read the piecemeal transcript in slate, which i beleive was quoting the NYtimes.

as to hilary in ny, as a new yorker, i'm glad it's her and not rudy or rick... yikes. and carpet bagger or not, she won by plenty of a majority, i.e.: we knew what we were doing. plus, lazio himself got his start in politics working for a ny senatorial campaign for a dude from ct. as in, not from ny. he then runs a campaign based on her carpetbagging. not good. and we realized it.

also, lanman, only 2 states, mississippi and alabama, i think, can split their state electoral votes, the 49 remaining electoral districts are all or nothing, as i understand it. i.e.: if gore can sway the fla electorate, he sways the whole thing... this one's not going to the house. and, the economy is waiting on pins and needles, not turning over, yet.

also, was it you or toby who pointed to nixon and said he did the right thing in '60? i just want to get this straight: richard nixon is no kind of example to hold up when it comes to election ethics. or does the word watergate mean nothing to you?

homer, the second choice thing is exactly what i outined in my big ol post earlier this afternoon. i think it's a pretty good way. i don't however think we should look to russia for democratic help. sort of like looking to nixon for election ethics...

[Edited by matty on 11-10-2000 at 05:14 PM]

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

11-10-2000 10:05 PM

LanMan
Member

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 295

matty, contrary to what occured in '72, I feel that Nixon showed great grace and humility at the end of the 1960 election. While I don't think that you overlook all of President Nixon's good deed's based solely on the Watergate, I do agree with you that Gore will not be able to turn enough Electorates to win the race. Provided, of course, that Bush is declared the winner.

__________________
<><

11-10-2000 10:19 PM

LanMan
Member

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 295

News Flash: New Mexico suffers from "Florida'tion". Now they are undecided, and recall Gore win.

[Edited by LanMan on 11-10-2000 at 05:31 PM]

__________________
<><

11-10-2000 10:22 PM

homer
Member

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

An interesting article on the ballot issue at Salon:

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/...sign/index.html

quote:

i don't however think we should look to russia for democratic help. sort of like looking to nixon for election ethics

Matty, I disagree with that. We have the oldest current government system in the world. Perhaps we are due for an overhaul? New democracies such as Russia may have elements that we should consider borrowing.

For instance, the electoral college. There are a lot of reasons as to why we have the college, but many of them are moot today. At the time, only male landowners could vote in this country. There were more male landowners in the north and they felt that would sway elections.

Our government is great, but could it be improved? Certainly.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

11-10-2000 10:30 PM

Toby
Member

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:
Originally posted by matty
toby -- the minorities are not angry because their man (theoretically) lost... they are angry because they were illegaly denied their constitutional voting rights.

If that is actually the case, it needs to be settled legally, and not with threats of race riots. Incitement by Jesse et al on behalf of Gore doesn't help either, of course.

quote:
they're not the lawbreakers in this situation,

If they're threatening to riot, or do actually riot, yes, they are.

quote:
the board of elections is.

Do you have proof of this? If so, perhaps you should be down in court in Florida.

quote:
minorities were turned away at the polls, due to not enough ballots and lack of linguistic assistance. it's not supposed to work like that.

No, it's not, but has it been proven that it really occured? It seems to me that the media is exacerbating the fiasco that it created.

quote:
a) it may not come to it at this time -- we'll have to see how hard jesse j. and his mates work down there -- but i think this is actually more scandalous than we are willing as a country to admit to ourselves.

As if it would be the first such election.

quote:
the shrub was awful sure of himself when florida first went to gore... awful sure.

If he had people on the ground reporting actual numbers which were posted when the polls closed (as opposed to exit polls conducted by the media), why shouldn't he be?

{Theories that Oliver Stone would be proud of snipped}

quote:
they can vote however they like...

This is only true of some states.

quote:
oh, as to the recount in wis and iowa, if gore's such an asshole to demand a hand recount in fla, why is the shrub so quick to threaten a recount in those other states? hypocrite pie, anyone?

He's just playing by the ground rules that Al was so quick to jump to. Those states were quite close as well.

quote:
Originally posted by linguas
FWIW, the ballot itself isn't even legal - Florida law states that the candidate's name should appear on the left-hand side of the ballot, and the selection method should be to the right of said candidate;s name.

That's the Gore camp's stated position, but I've heard at least two Florida lawyers say that those provisions only apply to hand-written ballots and a totally separate provision applies to machine-readable ones.

quote:
also, was it you or toby who pointed to nixon and said he did the right thing in '60?

It was me who pointed it out.

quote:
i just want to get this straight: richard nixon is no kind of example to hold up when it comes to election ethics.

Actually, in this case, yeah, he is.

quote:
or does the word watergate mean nothing to you?

So because Clinton was held in contempt of court in Arkansas, you suddenly stopped believing anything he says? Your partisanship is showing.

11-10-2000 10:31 PM

VoxDei
Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 195

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka
As for the electoral college, as time has gone on, like you said, it is strictly partisan. It was supposed to help the smaller states, but what states get the most visits? FL, NY, CA, & TX. You get those and you can almost forget about the remaining states. If Al Gore would have won, he would have wone by winning only 20/50 states.

I wish that electoral votes would be apportioned based on % of popular vote. That way Bush would have gotten 12 FL votes, Gore 12 FL votes, and maybe Nader gets one. This would give 3rd parties a fighting chance. Say what you will about Perot, but it is a travesty that he got 19% of the popular vote in '92 but didn't get a single electoral vote.

James,

While I'm not usually in agreement with George Will, he published a column one week before election-day in which he reviewed the purpose and effectiveness of the electoral college, versus the alternative of "majoritarianism." It's worth a read and while I would differ with some of his side points, I think his thoughts certainly deserve consideration in this debate. A link to the simpler, printer version is below...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

quote:
And don't get me started about Hillary in NY. If that's not partisan I don't know what is. She moves to NY, lives there for 1 day and can run for senator? Can you say carpet bagger? I don't think anyone (R/D/I) should be able to live in a state for one day and run for public office. You have to live in TX for I believe 2 yrs before you can get residential college tuition prices -- this should apply to public office as well. Wonder why she didn't run in Arkansas?

Why are you so concerned about this? What is it about longevity of residency that guarantees one person will be a better representative that someone from elsewhere? This issue was certainly debated throughout the campaign, as it should have been. New Yorkers are well-aware of their residency requirements and the unique historical opportunities they have offered individuals (including Robert Kennedy who did the exact same thing as Hillary). It's no secret why the Clinton's moved to New York and it never has been. No matter what other thoughts one might have about Hillary, people from both parties have acknowledged that she worked for 16 months throughout the state to win support. She traveled to traditionally republican areas and garnered support there, when many observers thought she could have just as easily skipped those areas and written them off. To criticize the electoral processes of folks in another state comes awfully close to slamming the folks from that state as being too stupid to know otherwise.

Remember when you urged us not to get into a "HandSpring vs. Palm" flame war? Perhaps it's best to avoid a "one state vs another state" flame war too!

11-10-2000 10:35 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

Pages (7): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »

Last Thread Next Thread

[

Show a Printable Version |

Email This Page to Someone! |

Receive updates to this thread ]

Forum Jump: