Is there any veracity at all to the SP Hall story?

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:55 pm

Is there any veracity at all to the SP Hall story?

I've been reading about this and it would certainly explain why Mike Rinder blew and why appearances by the likes of Jentzsch, Mithoff, Lesevre and other execs have been extremely rare, if they've made appearances at all, but still, the story sounds a little too far-fetched, even for Miscavige. This "Musical Chairs' story is pretty crazy. I never heard of it before this week. I've met Miscavige a couple of times and while the guy definitely is a condescending zealot and egomaniac, I can't see the guy behaving that irrationally and being that abusive. I don't doubt that he yells and screams, because that's pretty common among SO execs, but I've never seen anyone physically attacked.

I'd been to Gold a number of times during the years 2004-2007 (the year I left the SO) and I personally never saw anything strange or out-of-place. Now I wasn't a high level staff member or anything and there were parts of the base that are off-limits, but their security actually isn't as great as some critics make it to be. I'm glad I never had to work there, since the atmosphere seems pretty oppressive, but I always figured this had more to do with the place is out there in the middle of a desert and the level of fanaticism seems a bit higher than at middle management. But other than that, nothing out of the ordinary (from the SO perspective, that is).

The way I figure it, considering the level of attacks against the Church in the past couple of years and the media's love of sensationalism, the fact that this hasn't gotten any media coverage at all and the lack of 3rd-party verification in all this time makes me skeptical of the whole thing.
<<

Orderous

User avatar

Suppressive Person

Posts: 745

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:46 pm

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:01 pm

I can not confirm all the stories, but having read those I can assume you've also read about Gold base having to run with motorbikes chasing them after a botched pr-shoot?

I can confirm that one. No I wasn't there (I have never been in the cos, nor anything close to scientology), but I know someone who left because he was a part of the group running for dear life. And it's not just bullshit, this guy also told me quite a few other things which makes me believe him, things I will not relate.

And I do belive we've had members on these very forums that were part of the musical chairs story.

Trust me, most of those are confirmable. And DM truly is the disillusioned mad bastard dwarf people claim he is
The most important thing to learn about Life, the Universe, and Everything, is firstly; the answer is 42, and secondly; how utterly ridiculous it truly is
<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:24 pm

But what I don't get is why would these high-level execs put up with that? I mean, we are talking about people who have been involved with Scn for a very long time, some of them even longer than DM. These are people who are responsible for the huge expansion of Scn over the past 20-30 years and all the various other Church efforts. DM is one man, and even though he might like to, he cannot take credit for everything.

How can one man like DM go so far as to "imprison" all the other execs, who are technically (as far as I know) on the same level as he is, as far as SO ranks go (Captains and such), and more importantly, why would these people even go along with this crazy game? Are they that loyal to Scn? I would figure if one were that loyal to Scn and LRH, they would actually go against DM since these actions would be considered suppressive as far as policy goes. Not even LRH is claimed by anyone as having done anything this crazy.

Furthermore, Lyman Spurlock who is on that list was one of the founding members of CST, which is above RTC. Therefore, of all the names on that list, Spurlock would be one of the few to outrank DM as far as the hierarchy went. How the hell did he end up going from CST to something like "sanitation engineer" or whatever he's listed as on that list?

Basically, I have a hard time believing that DM has this much power and control, and why these people would just allow him to have gathered that much power, let alone allow him to maintain that power. It's not like DM is LRH or is even in the same position as LRH. It doesn't make any sense.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:07 pm

Maybe I can give you a better idea of what happens at Gold with DM and the execs.
I was there. I can't tell me story as of yet. But I can tell you that I was in a position to see several things that the musical chairs thing isn't much of a stretch from.
If you read Jeff Hawkins story, you'll see that the fear of DM spreads to every staff member and exec in the area. You can't fight it because just about everyone at Gold is in fear and can't stand up and say something because they have the whole base against them.
It was the same thing in Nazi Germany. But in Scientology people think DM is right and that they are scum. Specially when you have the pressure of the entire group on your shoulders. And with the idea this is the ONLY group that can save the world...lol.
I know Marc pretty well and can tell you he is a strong person. It took him years of abuse to finally say enough is enough.

Demoralizing is the key to control for DM. And that can stick with people for years and years.
It took me 15 years to finally confront what I'd been through in the Sea Org. And I was what I consider a fighter.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

I Escaped

EPFer

Posts: 27

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:13 pm

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:19 pm

Sounds completely crazy. A bit like a mega RPF for top execs. This shows again, that it is very hard to get out of the S.O. (especially if you still believe in all this "clearing the planet" thing.
<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:21 pm

I Escaped wrote:Sounds completely crazy. A bit like a mega RPF for top execs. This shows again, that it is very hard to get out of the S.O. (especially if you still believe in all this "clearing the planet" thing.


A little too crazy. According to this (albeit) conspiracy-themed website, CST is the ultimate "seat of power" in Scn: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/veri ... /power.htm

IMHO it does not add up that DM is the ultimate power broker in Scn. He may appear to be that way in the public eye, but on paper, he does have someone else to answer to. The power structure in Scn, if we analyze it carefully and from a legal perspective, does not allow for a single individual to retain that much power.

This is one of the reasons why LRH started the SO, as a counter-point to the GO, since he didn't want any single charismatic leader to run the org, since he would be the penultimate source of Scn, management would only exist to fulfill his policies.

The more I read about this stuff, the more skeptical I am. There's been so much misinformation from the anti-Scn crowd that a lot of times it's difficult to separate the truth from the blatant exaggerations and falsities.

It's like the flipside of the Church mentality in regards to the evils of psychiatry and mental hospitals. It's going from one extreme to another.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:47 am

The fact DM has been in charge for so long tells me he does full and absolute control. Specially if you know how he gained the control. And dismantled WDC. And legally he's not supposed to be sending orders down the lines. Which he is.
If some other organization owned the church, DM would have been long gone.
There's always going to be misinformation when people don't have answers. But does it reallt matter if he ends up answering to someone else? Scientology is coming to an end...as we know it anyways.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

MaxwellCross

EPFer

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:35 am

Post Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:41 pm

Iknowtoomuch wrote:The fact DM has been in charge for so long tells me he does full and absolute control. Specially if you know how he gained the control. And dismantled WDC. And legally he's not supposed to be sending orders down the lines. Which he is.
If some other organization owned the church, DM would have been long gone.
There's always going to be misinformation when people don't have answers. But does it reallt matter if he ends up answering to someone else? Scientology is coming to an end...as we know it anyways.


People have been saying that since the 50s, but Scn has remained. It isn't productive at all to advocate for the Church's destruction, especially since you're not going to win any hearts and minds like that.

When I left the SO, I was under the assumption that there were no more than 5000 members worldwide. I figured it was somewhere in the 3000-4000 range. According to this website (ExScn Kids), there are something like 10,000-12,000 SO members. If that's true, then this means that Scn has grown by leaps and bounds over the past ten years and is continuing to grow. Prices for materials and some services have come down considerably over the years as well, especially after the Basics. The whole Tom Cruise and Anonymous controversies have actually helped the Church rather than hinder it.

I'm personally suspicious that the SO could possibly be that huge, and I would be very surprised if it were true.

Basically I think it is better to focus on pushing the Church to reform, to make its leadership more open and accountable, rather than this leadership principle of DM controlling everything. It's easier to get people in the Church to wake up and do something if their beliefs aren't attacked and ridiculed. The more it is attacked, the stronger it becomes.

There's a lot in Scn I don't agree with, but I agree with enough of it that I wouldn't want to see it destroyed. I think in the end most people in Scn are like that.

The irony is that no one has to attack Scn to get it to change. Before all this media controversy with the Tom Cruise couch jumping and everything, IMHO the Church was on a downstat trend. This the irony. Most people, even long-time Scientologists, stay away from the Church because of the fanatical application of policy and so forth. New public don't hang around very long.

But then these Anonymous guys come along with these ridiculous protests and behavior and that gets the Church plenty of free publicity and it's raising their stats. I've even heard conspiracy theories that claim the Church is behind Anonymous - this would make perfect sense and wouldn't surprise me one bit.
<<

Orderous

User avatar

Suppressive Person

Posts: 745

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:46 pm

Post Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:36 pm

Sorry mate, there is no upstat in the CoS since the protests started.

Every single piece of paper coming out with their current numbers has been tested and holds no validity. They've gotten to the point where every single person who's ever bought or held a Dianetics book is classed as a member of the CoS.

There is such a thing as bad publicity, and as far as the CoS is concerned Anon is bad publicity. Not for what we do, but for what we have; numbers, know how, and a lot of stuff they never wanted anyone to see
The most important thing to learn about Life, the Universe, and Everything, is firstly; the answer is 42, and secondly; how utterly ridiculous it truly is
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:00 pm

MaxwellCross wrote:
Iknowtoomuch wrote:The fact DM has been in charge for so long tells me he does full and absolute control. Specially if you know how he gained the control. And dismantled WDC. And legally he's not supposed to be sending orders down the lines. Which he is.
If some other organization owned the church, DM would have been long gone.
There's always going to be misinformation when people don't have answers. But does it reallt matter if he ends up answering to someone else? Scientology is coming to an end...as we know it anyways.


People have been saying that since the 50s, but Scn has remained. It isn't productive at all to advocate for the Church's destruction, especially since you're not going to win any hearts and minds like that.

When I left the SO, I was under the assumption that there were no more than 5000 members worldwide. I figured it was somewhere in the 3000-4000 range. According to this website (ExScn Kids), there are something like 10,000-12,000 SO members. If that's true, then this means that Scn has grown by leaps and bounds over the past ten years and is continuing to grow. Prices for materials and some services have come down considerably over the years as well, especially after the Basics. The whole Tom Cruise and Anonymous controversies have actually helped the Church rather than hinder it.

I'm personally suspicious that the SO could possibly be that huge, and I would be very surprised if it were true.

Basically I think it is better to focus on pushing the Church to reform, to make its leadership more open and accountable, rather than this leadership principle of DM controlling everything. It's easier to get people in the Church to wake up and do something if their beliefs aren't attacked and ridiculed. The more it is attacked, the stronger it becomes.

There's a lot in Scn I don't agree with, but I agree with enough of it that I wouldn't want to see it destroyed. I think in the end most people in Scn are like that.

The irony is that no one has to attack Scn to get it to change. Before all this media controversy with the Tom Cruise couch jumping and everything, IMHO the Church was on a downstat trend. This the irony. Most people, even long-time Scientologists, stay away from the Church because of the fanatical application of policy and so forth. New public don't hang around very long.

But then these Anonymous guys come along with these ridiculous protests and behavior and that gets the Church plenty of free publicity and it's raising their stats. I've even heard conspiracy theories that claim the Church is behind Anonymous - this would make perfect sense and wouldn't surprise me one bit.



Very few people opposed the church of Scientology even all the way up into the late 70's. But then again Hubbard was in trouble with government for a few different reasons. The church always says it's because of SP"s...which is a fucking joke.

Read what many exScientologists thought about Scientology in the 70's and earlier. Most felt the church was about helping people. They felt people were being focused on, not the money. It was a whole different world. Much much less control on members.

I'm not sure where you read there are/were 12,000 SO members. That figure is much smaller even from hearing from people that have left over the past few years. My estimate was around 5000+ or so. But that was a long time ago...

Tom Cruise hasn't helped the church one bit. Not sure how you can come to that conclusion. If it has helped the church why did Tom back down and chill out instead of push forward? People are finding out about what Scientology does to their staff and they shit they pull in court cases and the all the other BS.

If you think Scientology is behind Anonymous you are truely not looking for yourself. And i disagree, the church needed to be attacked. They were an extremely strong oponent. Asking for change of the church without a fight wouldn't get anything done. Scientologists are too indoctronated to see it.
If it weren't for Anonymous much of what you see about the church would still be hidden behind closed doors.
Scientology will never go away altogether. And I'm glad for that. But the suppressive/oppressive side of Scientology needs to be stopped. And it's being done very well by Anonymous.
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:04 pm

I'm with Maxwell on reform over destruction, and with Iknowtoomuch on stopping Scientology's abuses. I like the Catholic church today, and I share their Christian beliefs, but I would be pissed off and ashamed if they were up to the same stuff they were in the Middle Ages. Selling indulgences, starting wars, inquisitons, and so on. They've stopped endorsing all that. Scientology can do the same with their own criminal practices. The good members of both religions can remain. If Anonymous brings that about, it will be a good thing. But getting rid of Scientology altogether? I don't think that's possible or the right thing to do. Neither is attacking people who want to live the philosophy and beliefs in good ways, or folks who want to be friends with such people even without sharing their religion. I have been subject to both of the latter measures and I have to say is that I don't think they help Anon's cause at all.
<<

Anonymous9104

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 418

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:07 pm

Post Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:31 pm

I don't think that's possible or the right thing to do.


You said this in regard to Scientology ending or dying out...

After reading about your own experiences with the cult, and your other posts, IMO, you don't even have enough experience or knowledge to lend you credibility to what you say about reforming the cult.

Number one, as it is written on other posts you've made by other ex sci kid forum members, it's simply against policy and out tech to fk w/the tech or change policy.

Secondly...


You seem to think all the bad the cult has down is cancelled out by the good... you seem to excuse it...

Again, I"ve made the metaphor and I will do it again.


A man who rapes his step daughter or molests a child, is often viewed by the mother as redeemable, like, even though he did this atrocious thing, he still did some good things and that makes him redeemable, able to be rehabilitated or forgiven...

The church rapes in every way... financially, emotionally, psychologically, physically...........

But you always find a way to excuse it and hope it gets better....

Interesting Sci Fi there.

Here's a story you can write, and dedicate the book to Anon9104

The Reform of Co$

And you can write your little fantasy out and purge yourself of ill conceived and false hope...

Maybe someone will even read it,

but not me.

It's enough just getting to the bottom of one of your posts...
<<

Anonymous9104

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 418

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:07 pm

Post Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:11 pm

Now Dre,

I should have more compassion on you, and be more Christian in my association with you.... so I will try to be more tolerant of your tolerance for the Cult.

Anon9104
<<

DRE

OTIII

Posts: 247

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:20 pm

Post Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:43 pm

Anon9104, I understand your point. But I will not give up my stance. Let me try this analogy on you.

The Catholic Church has done some terrible things in its time. Started wars, pillaged, sold spiritual indulgences, hidden the rape of many people by its priests, executed heretics, burned books, torture, you name it chances are they've done it. This stuff has been going on at least since the Middle Ages and much of it still goes on today. Am I mad at the Catholic Church over this? Yes. I'm disappointed too. I don't consider them perfect and I don't want to call myself one of them. I can't really forgive them either, that's God's job. Nor can I forget about my differences with them.

But even with all their crud and abuse, there is still my Aunt Leslie. She is a diehard Catholic, really believes in the holiness of her religion and its ways. She is a good person too, always willing to lend a sympathetic ear and bestow great advice on me. She is tolerant of the diverse sexualities in our family, such as my gay stepbrother and my bisexual sister as well as the straight swinger (me) and her own many divorced brothers and sisters, even though her own church's official policies tell her not to be that way. She stays our friend and does not judge us, instead being there for us no matter what. Leslie is family, no question. Before Leslie converted to Catholicism, she was a depressed agnostic. Today she has diabetes, is over 50, and is the main comfort to a recovering alcoholic. I want to love Aunt Leslie. I can't do that AND hate her religion. It's pretty clear her church isn't going to dissolve any time soon either. If it did, I'm sure she would need some heavy duty comforting at the least. I would take part in that, but I would prefer not to have to. I love Leslie that much.

Note- loving Leslie does not mean I excuse the Catholic Church's crimes. I don't. However, I don't hold Leslie responsible for the Catholic Church's crimes either. I know she wasn't part of them and guilt by association is not something I practice. Thus I will tolerate her and any other Catholic of equal righteousness I meet. Enough said.

Does she know of my differences with her church? Yes. She still treats me as family like I described above. I love her for that.

I see my Scientologist friends in the same way. I can't just write them off because "they're in a cult" or "their church is going away for good reason". They're good people and not part of Scientology's crimes as far as I am aware. I don't think they're the sort of people who would be part of the abuse either. And I pray my doubts about that are wrong. Yep, you guessed it, I still feel bad about my Scientologist friends' situation. I don't like them living as part of a 'church' that might abuse them or a world that looks down on them. Nor can I stop looking down on them myself sometimes. I know where you Anons are coming from. Ex-Scis too. Sure I was only in for a short time myself, but I've done a lot of reading.

So how can I love my Scientologist friends, live comfortably with their critics, and dislike their church?

You already know.

Hoping for the reform of the CoS, writing satirical fiction about it, and working to help others learn to tolerate its righteous members is my way of settling the issue for myself. IMO it's the best way in which to exercise my gifts to help the world. It may be the wrong thing to do from your perspective, but it is not from that of me and my friends. According to us, it solves way more than telling people they should be ashamed for tolerating a cult.

I hope you understand me better now. If not, well, I'm not changing just because you think I should. I'm loyal to my friends.
<<

mickwenlock

Clear

Posts: 117

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:04 pm

Location: Colorado USA

Post Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:54 pm

MaxwellCross wrote:But what I don't get is why would these high-level execs put up with that? I mean, we are talking about people who have been involved with Scn for a very long time, some of them even longer than DM. These are people who are responsible for the huge expansion of Scn over the past 20-30 years and all the various other Church efforts. DM is one man, and even though he might like to, he cannot take credit for everything.


What "huge expansion"?? yeah there was a time, what , about20 years ago when some of the orgs were doing really well but in Europe in 1988 for example most of the big orgs were HALF the size they had been in 1980 and I have seen little evidence that anything has gotten any better since then.

How can one man like DM go so far as to "imprison" all the other execs, who are technically (as far as I know) on the same level as he is, as far as SO ranks go (Captains and such), and more importantly, why would these people even go along with this crazy game? Are they that loyal to Scn? I would figure if one were that loyal to Scn and LRH, they would actually go against DM since these actions would be considered suppressive as far as policy goes. Not even LRH is claimed by anyone as having done anything this crazy.


I am extremely confused by your question - didn't you say you had been in the SO? Scientology is a dictatorship - which is exactly how HUbbard wanted it run. There is only one power in a dictatorship - the dictator. DM was the one who stepped up to get it.

Who in the SO could do anything to him? How would you go about it? You were in the SO - how would you get others to agrre to, for example, "comm ev" him? Who would remove him?

Furthermore, Lyman Spurlock who is on that list was one of the founding members of CST, which is above RTC. Therefore, of all the names on that list, Spurlock would be one of the few to outrank DM as far as the hierarchy went. How the hell did he end up going from CST to something like "sanitation engineer" or whatever he's listed as on that list?


CST is not "above" RTC CST is CST and RTC is RTC. Who or what is above what else is determined by Miscavige. As for Spurlock hie is not a "founder" CST - he is merely the legal person who helped set it up at DMs behest. Spurlock has never "outranked" DM. He has always been subordinate to DM. CST is not some "independent" entity. It is controlled by Miscavige.

Basically, I have a hard time believing that DM has this much power and control, and why these people would just allow him to have gathered that much power, let alone allow him to maintain that power. It's not like DM is LRH or is even in the same position as LRH. It doesn't make any sense.


DM has run the Sea Org for a longer period than Hubbard did. Bear that simple fact in mind.

With Hubbard gone the power in Scientology devolves to whomever controls the corporate structure, the money and the copyrights.

That is DM.

How would YOU go about unseating him?
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
<<

Anonymous9104

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 418

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:07 pm

Post Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:14 pm

Dre,

really should try to simplify...

For some reason... your post just whine and drone to me....

and mean nothing, absolutely...

just utter nonsense.

I'm not hearing you.

But I am being more tolerant...

and nice.

You don't need to respond and try again

because I just won't read it again...

Your posts are too long and whiny for me.

Sorry.

I can't get through the first 2 sentences...

Just your type of writing doesn't make me want to read.

I mean if you want to be REAL and respond to my longer series of questions... that would be cool.

Without accusations and inflammatory language, could you do that?

Your response to my wanting to be more Christian to you is just ............. ugh.

Why not respond to the one above it, as EACH point is made, respond in kind. As coherently, sensibly and rationally as you are capable of doing mindful of not deflecting any and all points and careful of not losing them in a pile of gibberish.
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:05 pm

Maxwellcross failed to get the answers he was looking for and has since gone....
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

mickwenlock

Clear

Posts: 117

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:04 pm

Location: Colorado USA

Post Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Is there any veracity at all to the SP Hall story?

MaxwellCross wrote:I've been reading about this and it would certainly explain why Mike Rinder blew and why appearances by the likes of Jentzsch, Mithoff, Lesevre and other execs have been extremely rare, if they've made appearances at all, but still, the story sounds a little too far-fetched, even for Miscavige. This "Musical Chairs' story is pretty crazy. I never heard of it before this week. I've met Miscavige a couple of times and while the guy definitely is a condescending zealot and egomaniac, I can't see the guy behaving that irrationally and being that abusive. I don't doubt that he yells and screams, because that's pretty common among SO execs, but I've never seen anyone physically attacked.

I'd been to Gold a number of times during the years 2004-2007 (the year I left the SO) and I personally never saw anything strange or out-of-place. Now I wasn't a high level staff member or anything and there were parts of the base that are off-limits, but their security actually isn't as great as some critics make it to be. I'm glad I never had to work there, since the atmosphere seems pretty oppressive, but I always figured this had more to do with the place is out there in the middle of a desert and the level of fanaticism seems a bit higher than at middle management. But other than that, nothing out of the ordinary (from the SO perspective, that is).

The way I figure it, considering the level of attacks against the Church in the past couple of years and the media's love of sensationalism, the fact that this hasn't gotten any media coverage at all and the lack of 3rd-party verification in all this time makes me skeptical of the whole thing.


3rd party verification???

What sort of 3rd party verif would you wish? How would it be done? If the independent words of ex members who have seen it and been part of it dont ring true then why would some 3rd party verif?

So, given that you saw nothing out of place - why would there be places that were off limits and how would that strike you as being "normal"?
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Return to Staff & Sea Org

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software