NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Dead Posts File

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:01 am    Post subject: Dead Posts File Reply with quote

I deleted a post from this board this morning. It was a post put forward by SalaryGuru. It was a word game post.

I thought that it might be helpful to create a thread called "Dead Posts File" where community members can engage in discussions of deleted posts and the reasons for their deletion. I do not plan to set forth the texts of all deleted posts in this thread. If SalaryGuru were to put forward the exact same post later today, I would not add his words to this thread a second time; I would delete the post and be done with it. However, in circumstances in which I think it is possible that a learning experience could follow from adding the text of a deleted post to the Deleted Posts File, I will do so.

In this case, I see two ways in which community members can learn by taking a look at the words of the deleted post.

First, looking at the words of the post may give community members a better idea of where the line is that they need to avoid crossing if they are to participate in the various discussions held here. I do not want those skeptical of my claims or the claims of JWR1945 to feel unwelcome. We need their input to improve our work and to provide balance to the discussions. So I don't want people to draw the conclusion that SalaryGuru's post was deleted because he is a skeptic. I want those who would like to offer skeptical viewpoints in a responsible way to be able to look at the words that SalaryGuru put forward, see where it is that he went wrong, and make an effort to craft their own expressions of skepticism in acceptable ways.

Two, the SalaryGuru post helps to illustrate one of the most important points that I have been making throughout the first 25 months of the Great SWR Debate. Deception is dangerous.

We talk about money questions on the various FIRE/Passion Saving/Retire Early boards. People who use these boards to learn how to achieve financial independence early in life have a right to expect that minimal levels of honesty in discourse will be honored at them. If word game posts go unchallenged, the chances are good that there are going to be community members who will fall for the trickery being practiced and suffer severe life setbacks as a result. That is a bad thing for every single member of the community. I find it impossible to believe that there is even one of us who wants to see that happen.

There are three word games being played in the SalaryGuru post.

One, he puts forward a claim that "No one has proven a 4% initial withdrawal rate (with appropriate allocation and fees) has ever failed for a 30 year retirement." No one has ever put forward a contrary statement on this point. To suggest that there is some sort of dispute on this question is to play word games. It will not be tolerated at this board.

Two, he says that "these studies have not failed," reiterating the word game described above in support of this claim. The obvious reality is that the conventional methodology studies have indeed failed. These studies purport to tell us a withdrawal rate that is safe according to the historical data. The historical data reveals the number they have given to be a high-risk withdrawal rate at the valuation levels that have applied since the late 1990s. A high-risk withdrawal rate is not a safe withdrawal rate. The studies failed to do what they purport to do.

Three, he says that "as of today, no one has proven that the 4% figure will fail." Again, this is a question not under dispute. The 4 percent number has been proven to be a high-risk withdrawal number for those with high-stock percentage portfolios. Whether it will fail or not is something that will be determined in future days. It is not something that we need to concern ourselves with at this board. Our purpose is to determine the withdrawal rate that is safe according to the historical data, presuming that stocks perform in the future somewhat in the way in which they have performed in the past.

Here is the full text of the SalaryGuru post:

Quote:
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JWR1945 wrote:

. . . More precisely, numerous investigations on these boards show that 4% is unsafe.

This is simply false. No one has proven a 4% initial withdrawal rate (with appropriate allocation and fees) has ever failed for a 30 year retirement. No one has ever proven that a 4% initial withdrawal rate will fail at some time in the future.

It's possible that it could happen sometime in the future, but it hasn't happened yet and you have not proven it. Statements like this is what draw the ire of logical, mathematically competent people.

JWR1945 wrote:
The remarks about dividends and valuations help us to understand why the earlier studies failed.

But these studies have not failed. You can not point to a single individual who has ever followed the SWR prescription and failed. You cannot point to a single person who is currently following the SWR prescription

JWR1945 wrote:
. . . In terms of a rate to withdraw, 4% is not guaranteed to be safe.

Nor is 1%. But as of today, no one has proven that the 4% figure will fail.

_________________


JWR1945Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:57 pm Po
I composed this earlier this morning and then found the original post missing:

Quote:
The Historical Database Rates of the past were generally bounded by 3.9% or 4.0% (over 30 years and with 50% to 80% stocks).

We draw a sharp distinction on this board between Historical Database Rates, which tell us what would have survived in the past, and Safe Withdrawal Rates, which are mathematically calculated estimates of what will be safe in the future.
I think that it was a good decision to separate this from the original thread.

If I am not mistaken, Hocus is beginning to use the phrase Historical Database Survivability Withdrawal Rate (HDSWR) as a descriptive replacement for the older phrase Historical Database Rate (HDBR).

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to reserve this thread for the posting of the language of deleted posts, and for discussions of the reasons for the deletions.

I have created a new thread in which I have posted the substance comments offered by JWR1945 in his post above and my response to those comments.

The new thread is titled "Fixing the REHP Study." Here is a link.

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2637


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus -

For starters, I'm a lying sack of #$% because I said I wasnt going to read any more about SWR's and I did.

I spent a good 10 minutes trying to figure out how to be diplomatic about this, then decided not to be.

Your actions in removing salaryguru's post and your comments about it are no different from the actions and comments used against you.

I agree with SG (someone get him a towel, he just dropped his cup of coffee), and nothing he said is "wrong". Historically, approximately a 4% SWR at 100% survivability *IS* in evidence.

Your points about current valuations and whether 4% of a currently overvalued portfolio is safe going forward are well taken.

These actions are not.

As far as having concretely proved anything, I'm afraid you have not proved anything and wont have proved it until 30+ years go by.

You have become the very censor and slammer that you claim to loath.

I'm afraid you have lost my support.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I spent a good 10 minutes trying to figure out how to be diplomatic about this, then decided not to be."

I think you did the right thing by telling it straight, TH. It's only by telling it straight that we are going to make progress.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
salaryguru
* Rookie


Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Mesa, AZ

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
I deleted a post from this board this morning. It was a post put forward by SalaryGuru. It was a word game post. . .

It's your board and you can do what you want. But my own feeling is that the "word game" is not being played by me. My comments were brief, 100% accurate, and directly focused on statements quoted from a JWR post. I think they cut to the heart of the controversy.

You chose to delete the post not because of the factual content or because that post misdirects the topic from the previous post, but because you don't like the words. That, hocus, is a word game.

Good luck.

- - - and thanks for the suport, th. You didn't have to drag yourself into this and I appreciate it.
_________________
-SG-



_________________
-SG-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No problem. I stuck my nose out to keep discussions and dialog open and to understand where the divergences occur.

As stated in my "analysis" thread, and discussed haphazardly in the "swr 6.11%" thread, some thinking around valuations is worthwhile, at least on original asset allocation and withdrawal rates.

Where the discussion and science diverge into displeasing behavior is when the historic 4% SWR is declared "wrong", the "valuation based future withdrawal rate" is declared "right", or vice versa, and censorship starts taking place to inhibit the "wrong" ideas.

History is what it is, and anyone can rewrite it or adjust what part of it they want to look at in order to prove a point. I certainly have some issues with the "historic" SWR process, but in total its a reasonable analysis.

The future is unknowable, except for certain likely courses. None of which relate to what someone will earn in what investment asset classes during what time period.

I argued that Hocus should have the right to discuss his alternatives without fear of censorship or being declared "wrong. The former of which is intolerable to me, and the latter being simply laughable because nobody can truly know or tell what the future holds.

But when he behaves in a similar manner, I cant help but to similarly rebut.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeuroFool
* Rookie


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 14
Location: Birmingham, AL

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm afraid I have to agree with Salaryguru on this one hocus. In my opinion you have WAY crossed over the line, labeling any statement you seem to disagree with as "word games", implying that the poster is somehow INTENTIONALLY trying to deceive or mislead, which I think is far from the case. Deleting the post, even if you did move it to another location seems so unnecessary. It's one step short of asking us to sign a position statement on SWR before we are allowed to post here.

You could have addressed SGs post with ONE SIMPLE sentence. First, though, I have to say that SGs statements are factual, no? Any individual in the past x number of years who chose a 4% or less withdrawal rate would have been ok. Is that not true? So, now all you had to say was this:

"yes, that's true SG, BUT, and here is the crucial point that is missing from the REHP study and not addessed in your comments: Withdrawal rates are based on stock valuations (our central hypothesis), and we currently have valuations that are higher than anytime in the study (fact?), thus a 4% number is not to be considered "safe" going forward (conclusion based on hypothesis and facts). So while a 4% rate HISTORICALLY has worked, it is dangerous to use the parameters of the REHP study since we are now well outside those parameters. What I indend to do is create a model for SWR that takes into account relevent variables such as valuation that can be shown to have worked historically AS WELL AS provide a safer, more accurate estimate of the SWR for the future...with the emphasis being on avoiding FAILURE of the portfolio at ALL COSTS, with the understanding that in many situations the actual ALLOWED withdrawal rate could end up being much higher."

Is that not all you are trying to say, trying to accomplish? I have been reading your posts for years now, and for the life of me I can't see where you have ever said more than this. It may be my lack of understanding of english, or my inability to handle basic math, or any other host of deficiencies I'll be the first to attest to.

SGs comment of "no one has proven that 4% will fail" going forward is also true. No one can prove a 4% rate will fail in the future. SGs point is only that 4% MAY INDEED turn out to survive. You, hocus, feel that 4% is inherently unsafe and claim to have the data to make a good case for this. Fine, I don't think SG would disagree with any comment that says, "I believe 4% is HIGHLY likely to be UNSAFE for the following reasons..." But to say that he is being deceptive? I find that to be an unsubstantiated attack. Hocus, I wonder if you are letting your emotions regarding intercst get in the way of reading posts you have an intellectual disagreement with dispassionately.

I find that the REHP study is a lot like the Atkins diet (of which I know a lot about from a medical/scientific perspective). There are the facts (that for some people it works but it's not better, on average for the population, than any other diet) and then there is the marketing: EAT ALL THE protein/fat you want and LOSE WEIGHT. The marketing draws people in (4% SWR!! SET IT AND FORGET IT!) but the details don't support the marketing...atkins never directly SAYS eat ALL you want, but that is a common misconception that the book people don't exactly spend a lot of time debunking. Same with the 4% rule...people just accept the number and don't understand the underlying assuptions. It sounds like you, hocus, feel that people who support the REHP study (and whose repuationion is based on it) are aware of the limitation but choose to ignore and/or deflect attention from the limitations. Fine, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. And you claim to have built a better mousetrap. Fine too, I believe that valuations and other factors can be used to better predict a SWR (or switching strategy or equity %, etc).

But at some point you have to ask yourself why people who are otherwise on YOUR SIDE, such as myself are exasperated. Because by continually talking about deception, personal attacks and all this other melodramatic stuff from the past you are DETRACTING DRASTICALLY from the very message you are trying to advance. You claim to have a valuable and valid and potentially ground breaking approach. But you keep shooting yourself in the foot and alienating those who would otherwise back you up. Deleting a post like SGs, or even just claiming that it deceitful, damages your credibility beyond repair in many people's eyes. I would venture to say that not ONE of the posters who left this board (raddr, wanderer, ataloss, FMO), not one would agree with the following statement "I believe that a 4% SWR as defined by intercst is 'safe'". I further would predict that many would say the answer is closer to 2%, as you have implied as well. So why all the animosity if they AGREE with you, for the most part?

My suggestion, is to simply stick to the facts that any poster is presenting. Don't "label" the comment as anything other than what is written. Quote the parts that you disagree with and say why. If you think the language betrays a difference of meaning of words (such as "safe") than point this out.

Instead what you have done is deleted the post and used it to show what will happen to anyone who disagrees with you. You have attempted to cut off SGs head and plant it atop a stake in the town square for all to see. You expect us to stay impartial and unemotional; you should do the same.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I don't think SG would disagree with any comment that says, "I believe 4% is HIGHLY likely to be UNSAFE for the following reasons..."

What do you say, SalaryGuru?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
salaryguru
* Rookie


Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Posts: 26
Location: Mesa, AZ

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
"I don't think SG would disagree with any comment that says, "I believe 4% is HIGHLY likely to be UNSAFE for the following reasons..."

What do you say, SalaryGuru?

I wouldn't want you to think I'm responding in a way that is playing word games. Here's what I posted on the FIRE boards back in February -- before this controversy began. I'll let it speak for me now too.

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2106

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: Irrational Optimism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I don't understand the combative attitude about a 4% withdrawal rate. It's just an approximate number that comes from historical analysis. It is a good guideline that can be used to get RE's started toward a target. If someone feels like the number is too high, they should use a lower target. Most RE's I've spoken with start with a lower initial withdrawal rate than 4% in order to provide some safety margin. But it has always seemed to me like there are other, more glaring approximations along the path to early retirement than establishing an initial withdrawal rate.

The assumptions to do the SWR historical analysis provide quite a bit of flexibility to someone who finds themselves loosing pace with their RE plans. For example, can you rebalance more efficiently? Spend more time and improve investment performance? Find a better banking rate? Including the relatively newly available TIPS and I-bonds among your investments improves portfolio safety from inflation in a way that was not possible several years ago. . . .

One of the most significant ways an RE can improve their safe withdrawal rate is by reducing the withdrawals. There are almost always ways to reduce one's expenditures in retirement by several percent. Can you put off replacing that automobile by a year or two? painting that room? Can you eat fewer meals at restaurants? Reduce that grocery bill? Take fewer trips? Camp intead of hotel? . . . I've always felt that establishing my retirement budget was the wildest guess I was making in the planning process. I know exactly what I spent prior to retirement. But once I retired, I was going to do things very differently. How could you possibly tell in advance how much of each activity was going to be enough to satisfy you? Plus . . . even before retirement, my annual expenses varried significantly from year to year.

So . . . in order to be safe, most RE planners assume a much lower initial withdrawal rate than 4%, assume a generous budget, assume an expense ratio slightly higher than they expect, assume social security will default, etc. And, in fact, if any one of those assumptions turns out not to be conservative enough, then the RE can usually make up for the problem by re-adjusting the others.

Focusing on the 4% number as some sort of critical value that must be reduced or the retiree is headed for certain doom seems misguided to me. A realistic retirement plan that will lead to successful retirement is based on a lot more than the initial withdrawal rate.
_________________
-SG-



_________________
-SG-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone get another towel ready.

I agree 100% with what SG said.

Now he has a wine stain on top of that coffee stain from this morning.

Sage advice.

I believe if you look up the term "tempest in a teapot", theres an URL pointing to this topic.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Here's what I posted on the FIRE boards back in February"

Thanks for your response, SalaryGuru.

Those seeking an explanation for the deletion of the earlier SalaryGuru post need to review the opening post in this thread.

Those seeking an understanding of what changes are required in the REHP study need to review the opening post in the "Fixing the REHP Study" thread. Here's a link:

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2637

Those who have come to believe that the SWR issue is a "tempest in a teapot" need to review the "For TH" thread, which describes the damage that has been done to the various FIRE/Passion Saving/Retire Early discussion board communitites as a consequence of the efforts of defenders of the conventional methodology to block reasoned discussion of the realities of SWRs. Here is a link to that one:

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2596


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bpp
** Regular


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 98
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Those seeking an explanation for the deletion of the earlier SalaryGuru post need to review the opening post in this thread.

From the opening post:

Quote:
I deleted a post from this board this morning. It was a post put forward by SalaryGuru. It was a word game post.

If you're going to stand by your original interpretation that SG's post was a word-game post and deserving of deletion, then I am, indeed, out of here.

Have fun.

Bpp


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will not address intent, but I will address content.

Make no mistake: the post really was a word game post.
1) Its arguments are based upon definitions.
2) It disregards our precise usage of terms on this board.
3) It dismisses our research without having given it a serious review.

There is no advance in understanding. It was strictly a matter of words.

Have fun.

John R.

BTW, bpp, I would much prefer for you to stick around.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've deleted a post put forward by BeachBumz. It was a nonsense gibberish defense of the intercst SWR claims.

The text of the deleted post is set forth below.

BeachBumz wrote:
MacDuff wrote:

To say "Survived =Safe" forgets the stochastic nature of these processes, let alone whatever valuation differences there might be.

This is a pretty simple concept Mac. We are talking about the past!!!!!! If the 4% rate survived all periods in the study then it WAS SAFE, period. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Did I mention that the study is talking about the PAST!!! Let's say we are in 2050 and JWRs 2.4% withdrawal rate has SURVIVED the last 45 years, then we will say in HINDSIGHT that was a SAFE withdrawal rate. Whether or not it turns out to be the HIGHEST SWR remains to be seen.

Quote:
If you have a good pension, not too much is at stake. But for those who must completely fund their own retirements had better understand that survived (2 or 3 or 4 times) does not equal safe.

I agree totally with that statement about the FUTURE Mac (except maybe about the pension...not to sure those are sure things either). Nothing equals guaranteed safe in the FUTURE...NOTHING. The closest thing I've seen to absolutely safe is JWR's calculations on TIPs if you have a limited time frame (even 30 or 40 years).

I think it's this whole PAST vs. FUTURE thing that is the problem. The 4% rate WAS safe in the PAST and we do NOT know what will be safe in the future. I certainly agree that valuations come into play. It will be interesting to see how the Y2K numbers play out over the next 40 or 50 years.

Beachbumz


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
I've deleted a post put forward by BeachBumz.

I thought you were going away.

Quote:
It was a nonsense gibberish defense of the intercst SWR claims.

Huh? How is the following a defense of intercst?

Beachbumz wrote:
The closest thing I've seen to absolutely safe is JWR's calculations on TIPs if you have a limited time frame (even 30 or 40 years).

I think it's this whole PAST vs. FUTURE thing that is the problem. The 4% rate WAS safe in the PAST and we do NOT know what will be safe in the future. I certainly agree that valuations come into play. It will be interesting to see how the Y2K numbers play out over the next 40 or 50 years.



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beachbumz
** Regular


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Norbert. Smile I hope to see you at the other boards.

Beachbumz Cool



_________________
Life is Good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

salaryguru wrote:
hocus2004 wrote:
I deleted a post from this board this morning. It was a post put forward by SalaryGuru. It was a word game post. . .

It's your board and you can do what you want. But my own feeling is that the "word game" is not being played by me. My comments were brief, 100% accurate, and directly focused on statements quoted from a JWR post. I think they cut to the heart of the controversy.

You chose to delete the post not because of the factual content or because that post misdirects the topic from the previous post, but because you don't like the words. That, hocus, is a word game.

Good luck.

- - - and thanks for the suport, th. You didn't have to drag yourself into this and I appreciate it.

I thought your post was short, SG, but not accurate at all.

There is a difference between what has been true in the past and what is likely to be true today, starting at today's market prices and dividend yields. Looking backwards only has limited usefulness and often is mentioned to disguise the reality of today's prices. It would be a little like driving forward by only looking in the rear-view mirror. Posts such as this are guilty of that.

The S&P 500 has a 1.8% div yield, 1.8% real growth historically, that's 3.6% real and is priced between P/E 20-22. Average P/E is between 14-16 depending which period you examine. The market is therefore overpriced by 25%+. The revision to the mean tendency means the market will correct for this over time - though we cannot specify if it will take 10 years or twenty - and this will reduce real returns accordingly. So real returns for the next decade or two are unlikely to be as much as 3.6% real and are likely be quite a bit less.

Therefore, 4% real return on a 75/25 portfolio is impossible based on today's valuations unless either real growth accelerates (which it doesn't ever do in a substained fashion) or investors push PE multiples way up, back to the levels in 2000. In which case the return is only locked-in if you can sell out of it before markets plummet. Few ever time this right. So we're left with less than 3.6% real on an all S&P 500 portfolio and with bonds offering the lowest yields in decades, real returns there are minimal too. So no help.

Whether your post was an attempt at "word games" I cannot say, but it certainly can confuse readers as to the limited usefulness of rear-view return analysis. Future returns clearly will not match past returns for the 60/40 S&P 500/US bond index asset allocation, and so the retire early studies of past returns are pretty useless to current investors at today's prices.

All the best,
Petey


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database