Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
July 16, 2024, 05:59:41 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autonomy  (Read 49402 times)
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« on: March 19, 2007, 08:46:16 pm »

Lately the concept of autonomy has been coming up. Some have argued that some GC churches are good, some are bad, and the movement as a whole shouldn't be blamed for the bad ones because every church is "autonomous."

au·ton·o·mous (adj.) Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent; self-directing.

In the past, this certainly wasn't the case. Jim McCotter traveled from church to church imparting his "vision" and keeping pastors of the movement on track in his eyes. In 1980, McCotter compared himself to the Billy Graham of GC, stating that, "He [Billy Graham] would not only be speaking to a lot of people, he would no doubt have times where he would be speaking to a lot of the leaders in different churches, and they would look to him for counsel, spiritual leadership, in that capacity. . . The analogy could be consistent in my case." Many of the teachings still popular in the movement originated from this type of centralized non-autonomous leadership. The organization-wide magazines GC published in the 1980's also ensured that all churches were on the same page doctrinally. A special edition issue of The Cause put into writing GC's beliefs on slander and excommunication. Many of the excommunication letters available in The Blitz Papers and Marching To Zion are signed by a plurality of national elders. Claiming GC churches were truly "autonomous" back then is misleading.

But, what about today? Even though McCotter is gone, there are still national pastor's conferences, faithwalkers, HSLT, Leadership Training, and so forth. GC still maintains some level of influence on all of its churches. GC pastors swap pulpits and visit each other's churches quite often, and certain people like Mark Darling become GC celebrities of sorts, their teaching tapes listened to throughout the movement. In the church error statement it reads: "We ask that anyone who has a concern about, or complaint against, a Great Commission church or leader to contact that church or leader. If that does not satisfactorily resolve the issue, please write to David Bovenmyer at the address noted on page 13." That sounds like the movement acknowledging its ability to influence/rebuke churches that "go bad."

If everything is so autonomous, why did the entire organization issue a statement of apology? And why does it say to contact David Bovenmyer? If every church is completely self-governed and free of outside influence, what would Dave be able to do? Also, (a question for Nate or Dan) is that offer still on the table? Is someone in national leadership willing to do something about the "bad GC churches" out there without resorting to the "autonomous" excuse? If so, maybe some of us here, especially those who have followed Matthew 18 on a local church level and have been unable to get anywhere, should send detailed explanations of their experiences to Dave (or whoever) and see if any action is taken.

I don't doubt that some GC churches are better than others, but I think that the word "autonomous" has become a canned response used to excuse problems in the movement.
Logged
sistanchrist
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47



« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2007, 04:52:14 am »

So I may have a hair brained idea, with the disclaimer, my hair brained ideas usually create some drama, but Nate, is David Bovenmyer still open for such letters of concern? If he is, not only would Nate get his fill of stories to research, and chance to begin the process of reconciliation, but something might change. Should those who have been de-commisioned decide to write David, every effort to confront the pastors/leadership at your old church BEFORE writing David. I still love so much of GC* and it breaks my heart to see so much that is so desperately wrong in so many areas of it. I am always on the look out for ways to help influence change. That and I am tired of hearing the stories of so many people who are completely shaken from God and are in so much pain because of what their GC* church has done.
Logged
Adam Hirschhorn
Guest

« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2007, 04:52:29 am »

Okay, but, allow me to respectfully observe that it seems like this was the process last time. Granted, it’s happening more quickly, but isn’t this the path that leads to an apology of little force or consequence? What can David do? Specifically, will this lead to a DB penned apology that has no effective bearing upon member churches that choose to ignore it?



And one thing that still troubles me is that reasonably good listeners and sympathetic souls have a hard time digesting all I have to say about GC. I still carry a great deal of prejudice which suggests to me that writing a detailed letter about my experiences will fall on deaf ears. As far as I can tell, the only behavior that gets any sort of pastoral discipline is getting freaky in Amsterdam. I figured that night in the alley when John said he was only accountable to God made it pretty clear to me that at least his impression was that of his own teflon security. And I buy it. I think John’s right. I think these letters will amount to a hill of beans.



I am also very aware that David has his own prejudices. I’d be interested in finding out of some of the much more substantiable behaviors of other pastors in my area get the attention they deserve before I submit my report of goings-on in the Fort Collins TACO shell. Can they get away with it? Can David actually do anything? More important than “can” is “will”.



I’m not saying that David is a bad guy. I am definitely saying that the character requirements of bringing justice to hurt people include persistence, objectivity, and resolve. And in this particular case, one must also have the critical thinking necessary to rethink a previous set of solutions so as to quash repeated errors. I hope that is worded vaguely enough to allow a more graceful solution that the one **I’d** imagine. I don’t believe that DB has spent enough time selling his audience on the possibility he might possess those traits.



Maybe an example will make it clear about how this looks to me. I had a manager at a telemarketing firm. Funny guy, so confident; if you said “I have a question”, he’d invariably say “I have an answer” never knowing what the question was. So he had this suggestion box, and made a big deal about the suggestion box, and I was never quite sure why it was so. One day I tell him, “I have a question”, and at this point I am so used to hearing his reply I manage not to laugh out loud when he says yet again, “I have an answer”.



“Why is it that you make such a big deal about the suggestion box?”



“I want to give people the false impression that they actually have an impact on what happens around here.”



I think those feedback forms you fill out at the end of the semester about your tenured professors works about the same way. Forgive me if that seems cynical.
Logged
Miss Current
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2007, 04:52:54 am »

GC needs to finish the BOOK OF GOVERNMENT and put it out in the open like they said they would back in the 1991 Error/Apology statement issued. For all practical purposes, the fact that GC did NOT follow through on producing the BOOK OF GOVERNMENT like the leaders said they were going to do really NEGATES the 1991 apology by the GC movement.
Logged

Miss Current
nateswinton
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264



« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2007, 04:53:23 am »

sista,

I emailed Dave the above main post about 2 hours after it was posted. I’ll let you know when I hear something. Miss Current, I also forwarded parts of your email to me about the Book of Government to Dave.

Adam,

“…the character requirements of bringing justice to hurt people include persistence, objectivity, and resolve. And in this particular case, one must also have the critical thinking necessary to rethink a previous set of solutions so as to quash repeated errors.”

“I don’t believe that DB has spent enough time selling his audience on the possibility he might possess those traits.”


Dave doesn’t need to convince anyone of anything, he’s not trying to, and it would be disingenuous of him to try to convince anyone that he’s something or someone. Dave is himself. I’m not sure who you would consider his “audience” to be, but I feel safe saying it would be his congregation, fellow pastors in Ames, and the Board of Directors (for starters). Since he has no formal involvement with you guys at this point, please forgive him for not going out of his way to convince any of you personally that he possesses anything at all.

Regardless of your impression of Dave (could you fill us in on your experiences with him so we know where you got this impression?), he’s convinced his own sphere of influence of many of these qualities and many more besides. I think it’s also telling that though no one here knows much about Care Ministries that he did after writing the 1991 letter, no one has ever come here that’s been a recipient of Dave’s work of reconciliation. I find that telling of the fact that the people that did contact Dave got their desired resolution and harbor no more bad thoughts.

If you’re disapointed or concerned that Dave has not demonstrated anything in particular to you personally, I’d suggest you wait till you have something more tangible to base your feelings on before you judge the man. Blanket statements are one thing. Specifics about indifiduals are another.

Not trying to be short here, just reasonable and fair.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2007, 04:53:57 am »

I can certainly appreciate everyone’s desire to positively help GC to reform in its dysfunctions. I tend to agree with Adam. As formerly an insider with the National Leadership, I got as close as just about anyone could to shake things face-to-face in multiple meetings, letters, emails, and even a board meeting. There is some level of sincerity and conciliatory talk, including some evidence of a little contrition. In the end, there is NO CHANGE. Why? Because this stuff is the kind of stuff that relates to:



1. Childhood emotional (psycho-social) deficits - Very deeeeeep emotional absence of necessary coping resources and connection schemas.



2. Culture - As much as most boast about being pro-diversity, the guys have only a theoretical/theological awareness of this area. The moment you challenge them that their theology and practice is an accurate depiction of projection of culture forced onto scripture, they look at you as though you are a heretic. “Why God is a Mid-Westerner! Doesn’t everyone know that?” Just one example from too many to list: Mid-Westerners elevate “Work/responsibility” to the level of a deity/goddess/dogma/doctrine. Hispanics put that value farther down on the pole and put up at the top: “Connection.” When you mention this, they say they believe in “connection.” You say no because they abandon their own in the field. (Example, Rob Irvine, Terry Box, Jim Coleman, myself and others). Rick Whitney’s loyalty framework has a back door. He is loyal to you as long as you never leave him. I’ve confronted him on this so many times that it is a scratched record and his answers amount to theologized abandonment.



Another example of such cultural myopia is in the realm of communication and openness. In the GC culture (also MidWestern) you must be a mind-reader. Being a big city boy and also Hispanic, bring concerns right to the forefront. I found, too late, that this is “anathema” and made them think that I “lacked self-control” which I took to mean that I had to run through endless hoops of debasement, apologizing, groveling, and softening my concerns to the point they looked like bland oatmeal and then I had to wait eons of ages to get a response. In the end, it was not cool to criticize leaders (my fellow leaders) though the theology taught underlings to be “humble.” They were shocked that I dared to criticize them, and yet I could stay connected to them (that’s called “adulthood”). They were shocked because they could not do that. If they criticize (and they do) they cut off all connections. I tried to teach them how this was immature and unhealthy. It fell on deaf ears (not ready and/or arrogance/ego).



3. Dave B. is a wonderful brother. He is probably the most advance within GC and is trying to create a reformation of healing. The problem is that Dave has little power these days. The real power is in Whitney’s and Hoplers hands. Ultimately, if you incurr their wrath, you are eliminated from the inner circle. I can attest to that first-hand… and I’ve told them. I’ve told Hopler that he speack softly and shares that he is open until you disagree with his views and show him how his thinking is not right. He then transforms into a ‘hammer” and God help you if you get hit by it. I’ve told this to him directly and to the whole board. I got glassy glazes (denial and a return to their “comfort sac”).



So all power to Dave if he can bring a new wind of change from within. I forecast that if he is not successful, he will be marginalized, or create a group of churches/disciples that will float away from the general organization and be very healthy and fruitful.

__________________



In the end, it would take a very deep work of God (breaking, as with all of us) in the lives of Whitney and Hopler to start things changing in a significant way. They are so stuck (I have told them personally) and limited to serious personal dysfunctions. Only a work and intervention of God’s Spirit in their lives can do this kind of work. When that happens I hope to get some letters of apology from them as evidence of what God has done (I’ve told that also to them).



Until then, I would encourage humble, contrite prayer for those men. They are good men who are blind and dysfunctional in areas that affect a whole organization. Pray for their eyes to be opened. Bless them to keep your heart in check.

_____________________________



I personally would not be surprised that the whole denominational thing is dying across the board. I see signs of many other denominations being stuck, falling apart, being irrelevant, and having great difficulty having cohesion. I personally believe that God is doing something unique that is trans-denominational and I would celebrate the ultimate disappearance of the venerable “denomination” body in exchange for a fresh outpouring of the Spirit in our world/USA.
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2007, 04:54:13 am »

I think it’s also telling that though no one here knows much about Care Ministries that he did after writing the 1991 letter, no one has ever come here that’s been a recipient of Dave’s work of reconciliation. I find that telling of the fact that the people that did contact Dave got their desired resolution and harbor no more bad thoughts.

From what I gather, most of the people excommunicated are still excommunicated. For instance, the most famous case is Bill Taylor, a guy excommunicated from the “worldwide body of Christ,” and whose excommunication is well documented. If Project Care was so effective, why didn’t even the most obvious and public cases get resolved? Of the 500 estimated excommunicated, how many were contacted during Project Care? I’m very skeptical that Project Care was anything more than a p.r. stunt to go along with the error statement, but I would be willing to change my mind if more specifics could be provided.
Logged
nateswinton
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264



« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2007, 04:55:24 am »

Sam, you were around during Care Minsitries, right?

What are your thoughts on it?
Logged
Adam Hirschhorn
Guest

« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2007, 04:56:44 am »

Hey Nate,



I appreciate your comments in defense of DB.  



Dave doesn’t need to convince anyone of anything, he’s not trying to, and it would be disingenuous of him to try to convince anyone that he’s something or someone. Dave is himself. I’m not sure who you would consider his “audience” to be, but I feel safe saying it would be his congregation, fellow pastors in Ames, and the Board of Directors (for starters). Since he has no formal involvement with you guys at this point, please forgive him for not going out of his way to convince any of you personally that he possesses anything at all.



Let me be clear, that if he has announced he is accepting letters of statement concerning hurts experienced within GC, then we would be that audience in this particular case.  If on the other hand this is all just hypothetical, then of course DB has nothing to prove.  The fact that his apology on behalf of GC in 1991 is vocally rejected by new leaders and nudgingly minimized by old leaders is absolutely not his fault.  However, I seem to require proof and documentation when you make this broad claim:



I think it’s also telling that though no one here knows much about Care Ministries that he did after writing the 1991 letter, no one has ever come here that’s been a recipient of Dave’s work of reconciliation. I find that telling of the fact that the people that did contact Dave got their desired resolution and harbor no more bad thoughts.



I would also like to submit the possibility that my attitudes and feelings toward GC do not inherently constitute "bad thoughts".  Remember thought reform is what distinguishes cults to the American Psychiatric Association.  A desired resolution as you say, a worthy goal, can mean a great many things to a great many different people.  I feel like the way you've put it here, that if I write a letter to DB, he's either going to fire our bad pastors and institute the book of government, or give us a supremely royal snow job.  If none of this makes any sense to you, I apologize.  You may feel that any desire for retribution or tangible consequence necessarily constitutes a "bad thought".  Or you might more strongly identify with the sentiment that if I just thought of these folks as my brothers and fallible human beings, that I'd be more inclined to relax and accept a more symbolic gesture.  



This is not my case.  The last time I talked to my pastor, he came to me "as a brother", yet attempted to interogate me about the testimony and identity of other people, and convince me of the surity of his position.  So brothers we are not.  I would at least like to see these folks publicly reprimanded.  That's what scripture demands.  This is something that GC may not be able or willing to offer, in which case, one would find efforts bearing more fruit through other means.



Of course, the testimony of folks who were part of Care Ministries might be of some help in my understanding what kind.  of a process we're discussing.  Maybe it's just the thing--I won't discount it completely.  But the fact remains that here we are back at square one, trying to find "reconciliation" and such things 15 years later.  Despite whatever successes they achieved in confronting these problems over the past two decades, I am interested in other voices besides the Martins, Piles, and Bovenmyers.  Maybe someone can say something that will not only convince me that resolution is something I should expect and can look forward to, but also that this is a problem that will no longer haunt future generations.  This, to me, is the larger issue.  Can we reach the church in one generation?
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2007, 04:57:02 am »

Nate,



I am not acquainted with “Care Ministries” unless it was called something else while I was an insider. I left in Dec. of 1999. And was in constant communication for about 1-2 more years.
Logged
nateswinton
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264



« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2007, 04:58:00 am »

Adam, thanks for the response.  I want to say that I found your last comment insightful and atriculate, and it helped me understand your point of view much better.  Thank you for taking the time to communicate effectively.

It's my understanding of the 1991 letter that it was written with a specific group of people in mind.  I don't think that it was written only for the 90's, but more specifically for the 90's.  I also hope that it's an indicator of general policy in today's incarnation of GC*.  It's been my personal experience in GC* that people make alot of mistakes, and when they do, they need to apologize and make it right.  

It seems for you and most others on decommissioned that the necessary resolution after a "wrong" has broken down in some situations.  Clearly if that's the case, there is a problem.  (forgive me, I'm trying to reflect back how I'm understanding the situation as I address it, so I might be repetitive here).

Would I be right in saying that if wrongs occured in your church (or anyone else's for that matter, speaking in a general sense and addressing everyone), and the wrongs were addressed and dealt with openly and with humility, that you'd probably still be in your churches and you'd be more aware of the reality of the falleness of man, but nonetheless much less hurting and jaded - and probably generally satisfied with your overall church experience?

I'm asking that just to make it clear to myself and other readers that are from GC* where you stand there.  In the theoretical situation that problems and criticisms and mistakes were all handled with openess and humility, and aplogies, where appropriate, were public and genuine, this blog would probably not exist, but instead the sum of your complaints would be voiced over coffee with friends from time to time.  Is that accurate?  Is it accurate that for a majority of these issues, the thing that really exasperated the problem was "closing of ranks", etc.?

I recognize that there are other thoughts on womens issues, theology, financial issues, etc, but if all of those things were open to humble discussion and GC* culture were open to change, would any of you have much to contribute to this blog?

I hope you can all see the direction I'm going with these comments, especially if you know that alot of GC* people read this and have never commented.

If there was a small branch of "Care Ministry" -esque GC* people that were sympathetic to the hurts and needs of ex-members, and that could go on-location and deal with things appropriately as they come up in churches, most of you would have very complaints to voice, correct?

It seems that one of the largest problems here is you all (and myself) are all pointing from different angles at some cultural issues within GC* that don't allow for change or a honest, objective look at social life within GC*.  You're frustrated that many of the people you respected, loved and cared about left you hanging when you really needed and expected them to care, be responsible, and help you.

What do you guys think?  Am I seeing things clearly?
Logged
nateswinton
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264



« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2007, 04:58:20 am »

Sam, thanks for the response. That’s interesting.
Logged
anon
Guest

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2007, 04:58:38 am »

   hahah - I loved that.
Logged
anon
Guest

« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2007, 04:58:50 am »

“As far as I can tell, the only behavior that gets any sort of pastoral discipline is getting freaky in Amsterdam.”



Meant that quote - sorry!
Logged
Genevieve
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2007, 04:59:16 am »

I agree with you, Sam. DB doesn’t have the real power in the organization. It would be better if he did.

We know DB is sorry about the past (not sure about the present). We know at least one other pastor has issued apology messages (can’t remember who or where). We know some staff members see the wide gamut of problems.

But none of those people have real power in the organization, so what’s the point of telling the same people the same things over and over? And if a national leader like Sam who started huge ministries can’t get troublesome leaders to listen I have little hope that we can.

Gene and I would still have left. The attitude of the leadership didn’t have anything to do with it. The problems are real, serious, and unhealthy. Someone expressing the hope for change without the power to change it does little.

Also, like Nate said a long time ago, GC is a radicalized, extreme form of evangelicalism/fundamentalism. GC’s problems exposed the problems in American Christianity today, so when we left, we left church as we knew it.
Logged
Samuel Lopez De Victoria
Guest

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2007, 04:59:47 am »

Just for your information…



When I was in GC I had propose many times having a team composed of some outside pastoral types (not part of GC) a good Christian psychotherapist and do a tour of each church and sit down with each pastor and wife to see what is going on in theri lives and their church. This was totally ignored. Again, the glassy look or the total non-response. I approached every national leader on these matters. No response. To me that spoke and still speaks volumes.
Logged
exshep
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2007, 05:00:53 am »

I only vaguely remember the care project. My Columbus church friends were not very caring and will make amends. It does not read well in print. I can understand how a reader would think I have feelings of hurt and resentment. I was trying to make a comment in passing and not engage in a venomous diatribe. Immediate apologies if it comes accross as that.

George Feiser and I have had conversations on the apology. I can sense a sincerity of heart. He did mention how GC tried to go the extra mile. I have to believe him.

I can also side with the former members who felt the Apology was not worth the paper it was printed on. One former member had a point in saying what is GC going to do with those left in the lurch. It was a balanced rebuttal. Sad to say, I do not have a copy of it nor know where to get my hands on one. It was a good read.

Tom Short did have dinner with a former Columbus church member a few years ago. It was a good sign for me. Tom today recognizes churches can go bad. I would love to meet over a cup of coffee.
Logged

Had friend in Columbus church 80's and 90s. Member left in 1993  Involved GC in Texas  2005-2007.  Empathy to both  with  positive and negative aspects.
sistanchrist
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47



« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2007, 05:01:11 am »

Nate,

I think for the most part you are right. If their was a way to address the culture in our churches, have a voice, or most importantly for the mistakes to be acknowledged publicly and privately that have been made and plans given to keep them from happening again, this blog wouldn’t exist, at least for me. I feel like if mistakes were addressed publicly with humility, much of the culture would change, and the problems would lessen over time. Honestly, despite how hurt I am, if those things were to happen I would probably be back in my GC* church.
Logged
Miss Current
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2007, 05:01:28 am »

Leaders in the GC movement reading this…I have asked this question before. Read comment #26 above and tell me why you wouldn’t want to make this your #1 priority within GC?

I think you leaders are at a CROSSROADS where you need to make a conscious decision of which direction to go. Ignoring the decisions you are faced with will…from my perspective…cause the very thing you are trying to avoid…divisions within your movement.

I am not a part of GC and never have been…I am trying to be as sincere and humble as I can posting this. You know the #’s of the GC movement…the # of churches, the # of pastors, the # of attenders, the #’s relating to the money flowing in and out of GCx. Look at them, look at 37 years of activity. Where should those #’s be and where are they. They have not met up with your intentions, wishes and desires. More importantly, what does God want?

Do the right thing. Make the decisions you need to make. Leave your humanity behind and enter into the presence of God. Affect people for eternity by making the right decisions now.

You know how to contact me… miss.current@gmail.com …please, I beg of you, make the decisions which you are faced with.

Miss Current
Logged

Miss Current
A brother
Guest

« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2007, 05:01:57 am »

Let’s say you were a pizza parlor in your hometown, and seven years ago a dozen people got really sick after eating at your restaurant. What would be your obligation today to tell new patrons that seven years ago some customers got sick?



We would all say that’s nuts. No business would advertise this. Why? Because its not good for business, and it is not relevent today.



I’d like to suggest that a local GC church is not much different. Churches are in the business of helping God make new disciples. Would it be good for business to hand out a visitor brochure on Sunday morning that discusses all your church’s past faults, all the families who have left for any reason, all the sermons you wish you could preach over? Of course not. Would you put an announcement in your bulletin every week that says “New members are encouraged to read our 1991 paper about church error.”? No.



What you would do is try to learn from your past mistakes and make the future better. I know, I know … some here would argue that GC is not interested in learning from past mistakes, or even calliing anything in the past a “mistake.”



The point I’m trying to make is that today’s pastors have a fulltime job just dealing with the current hurts in their church — marriages falling apart, people losing jobs, sickness, sin, etc. Most guys I know are always “on the clock” just trying to keep up with everything they are expected to do. To expect them to en masse dwell on the past and how to write a pithy apology to each and every person ever negatively affected by GC is a lot to ask — too much IMHO.



How many of us, if we were to take stock of our own lives, would go back and try to locate each of the hundreds of people we hurt, offended, and di wrong by. We don’t have the time … or the guts.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1