Equality
The point I will try to make in this thread might not apply to other countries than Norway, but I'm interested in hearing wether it does.
In Norway, the labour party has won most elections the last 100 years, and have been in control of the government for maybe 85 of those years. I am not sure wether this is why things are as they are, or if it is norwegian mentality that makes it so. Maybe it's even something else, that I didn't think about. You see, over here, equality has always meant very much. This might sound good at first, but it isn't always so. Now, this spring was my last in norwegian school system, and I'm going to the university to study after I have had my military service now. Since it was our last spring, there have been a lot of people asking us questions, and giving us paper forms to fill out. The goal of these surveys were to find out how what we thought about school after being there for twelve years. The questions we were asked eventually got me thinking, and I remember a lot of situations those past twelve years where I'd rather equality was not the goal. Gymnastics would be a good example, seeing as it's one of the subjects where people are very different in many senses. It would nearly always be teamgames, and if some individuals excelled - then they were told to be more of a teamplayer. "Don't be egocentric, let X have the ball!". Individuals who were good, were often taken off the pitch, so those who were mediocre would have a chance to feel like they were doing good. As a result of this, the gymnastics were never about excelling, it was about keeping yourself on the pitch. I'm sure people can see why this isn't necessarely good (You would see the same on football teams in the region, everyone were supposed to play where they wanted to, and noone would play any longer than others). Maths is another example. When I was younger, maths was my favorite subject, and my homework was always done in time, and I did well on all tests. If I got 85%, or 90% points on a test, I would be given a pat on the back, and the teacher would proceed to tell me I was doing good. He was obviously satisfied - wether I was or not, was irrelevant. He would then go on to help pupils who didn't have any talent or interest of the subject - to get the average up. The educational system in Norway measures the success of schools in average grades. The grade system is 1-6, where 1 is failed, and 6 is the best. The average would be perhaps 3.5, for a school, usually. Seeing as it is easier to get a student from 2, to 4, than from 5 to 6, teachers are usually forced to prioritise pupils with lower grades, who either just don't care, or have problems that stems from other sources. This leads to "top notch" pupils not getting any help, and largely losing interest. I was lucky enough to have a teacher who had other methods the last two years, and managed to extend to my limits, but mostly if you do good, you'll be given a pat on the back and told you're doing good. Why would this be a problem? Well, when you're concealed in school the teachers control your environment to a large extent - this is not how it works in "real life". Because of this way of working, a lot of sharp and talented individuals lose interest, and become merely average. The average grades are improving, but we see fewer, and fewer really talented people each year. Football is an example of a sport that is suffering because of this. We have a lot of well organised teams, but all the players that are creative, and can settle a match on their own on a good day are foreigners (With the exception of 3 players, from the top of my head). I think this an effect of how the system treats people in their youth. But people aren't identical - of course you should put the team first, but you aren't the team. You're an outstanding individual, noone is quite like you. When the government sets themselves a goal such as; Maths students should average 4. Will they be happy if everyone eventually gets 4, and there are no longer any 5's and 6's?* If this continues, I think the society here will become dull and boring eventually. Thoughts about this? Is this so other places also, are there any positive effects that outweights the negative one? What should be done to solve this problem? Or is there no problem at all? * I don't think it could ever go that far, but due to people who either don't have any interest, or people who don't have any talent for subjects being prioritised 100% some places, the real talents will go lost when they lose interest when trying to learn next years curiculum alone. I know I did, until I picked it up again two years ago. |
Re: Equality
It comes down to your analysis of what makes a good government. Now obviously what you appear to have outlined seems to be a fairly extreme example but the general question remains over what are the priorities of the government, or rather what should they be. Essentially the approach of many states over the past sixty to seventy years has been a reaction to the nature of democracy, that is "idiots get the same number of votes and there's a hell of a lot more of them". The further your country tends towards a socialist approach in terms of healthcare and education, and I don't mean universal healthcare and education I mean what qebab outlined in education and giving the same priority to different patients, the less people will want to let this go.
Personally I don't think the positives of it outweigh the negatives and I support a minimalist, individual responsibility orientated, ideal-market-inspired approach. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
Anyway, there's a lot that could be said on this topic but more generally I'd say that there are associated costs & benefits to any sort of 'national philosophy'. By pursuing equality (in a seemingly fairly irrational manner) you might indeed be stunting sporting genius (there's no way of testing this, but let's presume that it's true). And so you aren't going to get the sort of creative genius that, say, the Brazilian or Argentinian slums seem to produce every once in a while. But then again I'm presuming there's a lot more random murders in Sao Paulo then there are in Oslo. Obviously that's not a fair comparison, but the point is that if you increased the amount of inequality you might find you had better footballers but an overall worse society to live in. Not that I'm defending these policies per se, they seem rather bizarre, but I suspect they are the natural extension of other (mainly authoritarian) ideas. In general though I am unsure why the citizens of a country should actually care if "they" (as a nation) are any good at sports. But looking at education from another angle, if you look at the United States , I doubt many would deny they have some top class colleges (Harvard, MIT, etc) who are second to none in the provision of elite education, research and so on. But by all accounts the rest of the countries education system isn't so good and indeed we hear various horror stories about the provision of education in, say, poverty stricken inner city neighbourhoods (not that this is necessarily linked much to the first point). But does it matter? What are we trying to achieve? A balanced generally well educated populace or some sort of elite? Fortunately I do not believe that these questions are either/or but if they were, what would we want? It's better to have a bunch of geniuses because they'll be the ones who will cure global warming, right? Well, possibly, but this is not particularly straight forward. It might be that the big issues of our day (climate change, AIDS, energy use, etc) will need to be solved from both ends - both scientific breakthroughs but also cultural adaptations. Looking at infection rates of AIDS (for instance) the big wins seem to have come mainly from educating people on the ground, not some uber cure. Speaking generally : Yes of course people are different. That's the wonderful diversity of the human condition. But egalatarianism doesn't deny that. In fact, most sane egalatarians are open to the idea of various differences in capacity between people. Even if you take some radical Bell Curve position of genetic inheritability of intelligence and racial differences in IQ and so on as 100% true then that still would not really challenge the egalatarian position in any meaningful fashion as far as I can tell. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
If nothing else, I think one of the primary lessons you'd want to teach your "elite" is the idea of sportsmanship and being the bigger man, etc. |
Re: Equality
I find your post really disgusting and it genuinelly angers me. This is probably the main reason why I would never send my kids (in the unlikely event I have any) to a state school. The situation in the UK is pretty similar, and I would assume the same also applies to most other Western countries - education is focused squarely at the lowest common denominator, and the most important thing is getting people up to a certain minimal level rather than pushing the talented kids forward. The whole thing is pretty much designed to squash any real creativity or talent, and its really depressing to think about the number of potentially bright people who have been handicapped by an education system which focuses on the mediocre.
You see this sort of thing at all levels in society (the same mentality underlies pretty much all socialist policies) but one of the most interesting recent examples was an initiative I was reading about in the Metro where a bunch of private charities were getting together to make laptop computers available to third world countries at very low prices (around 50 quid). This provoked outrage in the Letters section, with several people writing in to complain that it was disgraceful that charities were engaging in a program which would only help those who came from realtively well-off families and were literate, rather than directing their efforts towards feeding and clothing the extremely poor. Its the exact same mentality - the desire to make everyone mediocre even if this actively prevents a few from excelling. Another good example is the sort of patterns people display when giving to charity. Charities which are focused on helping the poor, and those who have no obvious value to contribute to humanity, often get huge amounts of donations, whereas not many people would be prepared to donate money towards helping fund the work of a talented artist or scientist who didnt have the finances to achieve his goals. Similarly, people tend to think its somehow more moral to build mudhuts in Africa rather than help to fund start-up companies via the stockmarket or whatever. The general rule is that the greater your level of mediocrity, the more people will be inclined to help you, and this is reflected at pretty much all levels of modern society, from primary school onwards. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
In general I don't think you can surmise that much from charitable donations in this sense - at the start of the 19th Century there were plenty of philanthropists (John Ruskin, William Sutton, George Peabody and so on) who put money into building housing estates. That doesn't really happen these days not because people don't care about housing but because there are different methods of financing housing (banks in particular are very happy to lend to housing associations). Quote:
|
Re: Equality
My take on it is that talented people who care to advance will be motivated enough to do it on their own time. As for Nodrog's points, he sounds a lot like Thomas Malthus, who rougly said that poor people are not worth helping. I don't agree with that, but I'm not sure if I'm setting up a strawman here.
I understand that a lot of people are tired of inept social programs that do not seem to do anything other than reward lazyness or please an unjustified social sentiment. I admit, it's true, there are problems with how social services have been implemented and how various philosophies or ideas have been forced into areas where it isn't working or doesn't make a lot of sense. In education, I think it is enough to give everyone the same opportunity and tools to make the best out of their time and effort. It is up to the parents of children to motivate their children to learn and do well, not the school. I don't think the teachers need to help any group of students over any other. Just teach the information, if there are students that excel, than advance them through the program faster than others. Having said that, I believe there are children who, because of problems with their families, health, or economy will not do as well as they could otherwise, and I don't see any harm in providing extra tutoring after school or some such service to help these kids out or anyone else who might need it. Extra work, or 'AP' style classes for advanced students, after hours or during normal school hours, is okay too. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
As for needing a teacher, I think most people do need a demonstration of something before they can work out. Solving equations is hard to do unless you have seen someone do it already. Intellect is often about catching onto something quickly, and you can often train yourself to do that. I don't consider myself very smart or intelligence, but I like to be allowed to do what interests me, and subjects such as history, physics, maths and chemistry have been among them. I was lucky enough to have a physics teacher who lived for his subject, and knew stuff way out of curiculum, and I hope to be able to continue working with that subject. But if my teacher hadn't been willing to help discuss with me, and teach me the subject outside school, I very much doubt that it had been something I enjoyed today. And before we start labeling people into classes, my father is a labourer in industry, and my mother is a low level office worker. I have been brought up as working class and earnt my own money since I was 14. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
But a lot of that extra spending is utterly wasted because we (i.e. the education system) are (in many cases) forcing pupils to learn about things they have no real interest in. I am not talking about giving an introduction to all subjects when students are young, but compulsory lessons in utterly stupid subjects long beyond the point where it's obvious they are not interested. In terms of independent learning I think the 'net is an obvious opportunity here. When I was about 13/14 I was vaguely interested in programming simple QBasic programs often with sbOlly from these forums. But the only real resource we had was the qbasic.hlp file plus a couple of things we might have come across on BBS'. Now a kid in a similar position would be dramatically better off and could probably end up a competent programmer before they even hit 18. And in this context all they'd need would be some access to computers (quite universal in the west), some free time and some imagination. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that is what this is all about. Myself, I want a school system where everyone has the possibility to reach their full potential. I spent twelve years in the school system, learning what I probably could have learn in ten years. This means that there was a lot of extra time that was filled up - by doing nothing at all. This is where I feel our system fails, at least. Those who are not interested in some subjects (mainly such subjects as norwegian, history and society) are absent a whole lot, but when they are there, they are behind. This means that the teacher will try to teach them what they lost out on, without it making the subject more interesting to them. This is a vicious circle leading to more absence. The system for these people should be to change to subject to fit them, you can not change the pupil to fit the subject. Make it interesting for them - this way they will work with it without the teacher spending half a less telling them why it is important they learn it. Theoretically speaking it would of course be better to get a working cure for AIDS. These countries (Mainly third world countries) have poor educational facilities, they are generally many years behind. But as Nodrog gave us an example of, with those laptops - you need to start somewhere. It would be better for the country if they were able to stand on their own without help, and doing this comes through education, not supplying blankets and shelter. Trying to industrialise these countries so they can produce something, and earn money would be a final solution to their misery, while giving food, shelter and water will only last so long. It is kind of idiotic to protest when someone wants to send educational aid to literate people, because others don't have houses, or water. Obviously, the basic needs for the human being must come first - water, nutrition, shelter, other human beings. But if we keep just giving them those things only, do you honestly thing they will ever get their head over the water? As you say, it is about a balance. A balanced populace with regards to education would be the best - ever layer of society is needed. But you need to start somewhere, and the middle isn't necessarely the best place. Quote:
Having ranted at our educational system, I must say I am pleased with our public healthcare. We are generally quite good at these things, but not as good as we were. Our welfare is generally good, it was just me thinking back at those years during school, and thinking that it really was not that good. |
Re: Equality
As much as I'd like to stay to debate this, I really have to go. I'll be back tomorrow, hoping that I won't fall too far behind.
|
Re: Equality
Quote:
It's quite possible - there's the usual stereotype of a tourist from the countrside who gets ripped off by everyone when he or she visits the big city. The idea behind this is that people in the country aren't sufficiently well versed in scams, or confidence tricks and so on. Now, no-one is saying that city folks are somehow better spiritually for being paranoid towards everyone but it's certainly an advantage in some circumstances. Perhaps the same applies here that equality is a good idea internally but less good when facing external pressures or competetion. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My point wasn't that a cure for HIV/AIDS would be superior but simply we do not have one yet. And it's not clear that one is around the corner. Certainly with more complex diseases likes cancer it is unlikely we will develop a 100% cure for at least a few decades. In the meantime, the easiest ways of cutting all these diseases is lifestyle changes and economic restructuring. Both of which require a reasonably educated populace. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think to summarise, I like Noam Chomsky's point : egalitarianism is a principle, not a position or a system of facts. I am saying that if, tomorrow, a spaceship arrived bearing some amazing treasures from another world that we should do our best to try and spread this benefit to as many people as possible rather than it all going to whomever got lucky, or was militarily strong, or whatever other justification we have for unfair share. In many ways we already have egalitarian arrangements in place. The law is a pretty good example where most people are treated more or less equally in a given context. This has not always historically been the case. But obviously there is still lot to do. |
Re: Equality
Couple things.
I don't really see 'go read some books' as being a good solution to the "bright kids" 'problem'. I read a lot when I was going through school, and I learned one thing: spelling (maybe a little contextual vocabulary). When I have questions in my research, it's usually possible to find the answer in a book, but it's usually 100 times faster just to ask my advisor/whoever (and the answer given will be much more likely to be phrased in a manner relevant to my specific situation). When I went through school, obviously more attention was paid to the 'mediocres', but it's hard to argue with that. One central issue being: what good is it for a teacher to spend extra time with a specific student when that student is as intelligent or more so? I'm almost glad teachers spent so little time with me, as it turns out much of what they did tell me was inaccurate. One answer to that issue is to take the bright kids away from the normal teachers and give them to a 'better' group of teachers. This will never happen, for two reasons: where do you get this group of teachers? In general, the upper level of society has better things to do than babysit your brats.* Secondly, because we live in a democracy, and people in general won't vote in favor of moving funding away from their kids, especially because that will also move smart kids away from their kids (and people tend to think (rightly?) that being surrounded by intelligent people will help make them smarter). And also because that is something the nazis and soviets would have done. Anyway, as always I blame the parents, not the schools. If you think it is important for your child to learn something, then teach it to him. If I have a child that turns out to be exceptionally intelligent (and I don't really care if any do), then I will put them smack into a public school system, and (rightly) treat that school as a baby sitter (that has the added perk of teaching my child how to socialize properly), and take the responsibility of actual education onto myself. And I have no respect for any parent who would do otherwise, unless they happened to be much dumber than their gifted child. * There are four situations I can reasonably imagine a very capable and intelligent person giving one-on-one time to your gifted child: 1. Your child is working in industry. The other person is his boss. 2. Grad school, advisor. 3. You are rich as ****ing hell, and paying the guy hundreds of thousands a year. 4. The "capable and intelligent" person is you. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
I don't really rate myself morally to be honest, but isn't it of the greatest importance to provide a basic "quality of life" for everyone? I suppose that's pretty irrational, but then I'd question the logic behind my sitting here while Jim Crow endures conditions that we would not subject our pets to. More on topic, I think that if we really want to improve our society we should look toward our own modern vices. If we're misusing economic opportunities by educating everybody to a basic standard what can be said about the money we spend on product packaging? Do I really need a cleaner to save me half an hour of my day? How much money is afforded so that a minority can enjoy the "high life"? How much more so that those who tend them can see the pictures? I'm back off topic again. I suppose I feel bad for you in that you could have had it better, but how bad should I feel for you? |
Re: Equality
Quote:
|
Re: Equality
If you are so goddamned smart, why don't you go about realizing your potential and let the teachers help those that really need it? Life is not handed to you on a platter, you know.
Besides, it's bullshit. We carve personal attention and love to flash here as much as any other country. To say that Norway is built on equality is misusing the word, like calling this system for democracy. In school, all my teachers cared about were the top students, not the medicore or bad ones. I guess it's just the eyes that see. ps norway is far from socialist. that would be like calling the system we live under for democracy |
Re: Equality
Quote:
But back on topic... We have something similar in the US called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Basically, schools are evaluated according to how many of their students pass a series of standardized tests (in reading and math). Previously, some schools were simply passing students regardless (to make themselves look good) and ultimately graduating people who couldn't read or write or do simple arithmetic. I have no problem with the general idea of evaluating schools and unfortunately since the government operates the public schools, the normal marketplace corrections are absent (dysfunctional schools can't go out of business, bad teachers/administrators are rarely fired, and ultimately people can't just take their business elsewhere). The problem with this standard is that public schools have little incentive or reward for educating students beyond the level required to pass the tests. This has put pressure on schools to transfer funding from programs aimed at talented students to remedial programs (arguably they had little incentive to provide accelerated instruction before NCLB either, but at least they had no strong incentive not to). Even programs in other subjects such as music, art, foreign languages--basically anything that doesn't show up on the standardized tests--are now at risk. I think the biggest danger of cutting accelerated programs and spending more class time on remedial instruction is that the advanced students are more likely to get bored with school and stop caring/trying. Children, regardless of their level, need to be challenged. Some students will be able to challenge themselves and some parents can challenge their children; but I think it's asking a lot (probably too much in many cases) to expect children to sit through hours of repetitive instruction of things they already know and still maintain a love and excitement for learning. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
In strict terms the flow of wealth is probably from the first world to the third world (especially once you include the money sent home by immigrants in the west) but I'm not sure that really constitutes value, but I realise that's a bit more of a fuzzy concept. My point was put better and simpler by Ephor : in any scenario the elite can hardly be said to be doing badly (and if they are, I think we should question whether they are actually 'the elite'). More specifically here, we can debate how much of the first world's wealth is dependent on the third, but in either case I think it's clear to most observors who's generally doing best out of world trade and it ain't people living on a dollar a day. In relation to your other point I of course agree about targets. There's an expression in management speak which sums it up - "What gets measured gets done." With the unspoken addition - "unfortunately, very little else does." being tacked on the end. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Equality
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Equality
Quote:
and while it's debatable as to whether the "let's stop those krauts!" plan was implemented 'brilliantly' or some other adverb would be more fitting, i think it's clearly high time we cloned up an eisenhower. |
Re: Equality
Equality of opportunity is desirable.
Equality of outcome is undesirable. A government which concentrates on making sure that the opportunities for all of their citizens to excell are as equal as possible (poor people having the same access to education as rich people for instance) is a plus. A government which concentrates on making sure that everyone gets the same outcome for their lives regardless of the amount of effort or talent expended by the individual, is not a plus. Unfortunately, in an education system, unless you segregate individuals by ability leading to elitism, you are stuck with a system which will have the best effect on the great middle while having less than optimal effects on both ends of the spectrum of talent. Those with the money to go outside of the system will do so to see that their offspring have additional opportunites. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
In any case, I feel the term "undersirable" is far too strong here. Perhaps "Not a goal we should actively directly seek" or something. Myself, I look forward to the day where the vast majority of differences between people's lifestyle are down to personal choice rather than economic or political restrictions. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
|
Re: Equality
Quote:
|
Re: Equality
Quote:
And why shouldn't bright children have as much right, or deserve help as much as any other kids? I think it is wrong to say that these children should study on their own since they don't really need guidance to get through what others might need guidance to get through. I also think that they need guidance as well, it's just a matter of how quickly they catch on to it, or how much interest they have in it. Quote:
I don't think I said that Norway was built on equality either, at least I did not mean to. I am saying that this has traditionally been a value that means a lot to norwegians, and that this shows on our society. The one big exception to this, is the obsession with celebreties that some people show. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
I don't think I have a sufficient talent for playing football to ever become a professional player, no matter how much training and assistance I would recieve. It is also something I wouldn't want to prioritise. However, I do believe that I have a sufficient talent for science to become a scientist. Wether this would be chemistry or physics, I don't know, but these are realistic goals. The restricting factor in this case would then be my environment. These are obviously examples, and probably not the best ones you could find. But the idea behind a school where you can fulfill your potential, is obviously that the school is not the restricting factor that renders you unable to achieve your goals. This will of course be nearly impossible to measure though. |
Re: Equality
America's K-12 grades (Primary, middle and high school) are, I'm ashamed to say, a joke. Kids only see thier schoolwork as a task to be completed and forgotten, not something to be learned and retained. Most information is only retained by students in bits and pieces, not the entirity that it was taught in. The exceptional students are given exceptional attention, the mediocre students given mediocre attention, and the bad or "hopeless" students are for the most part given up on by teachers.
The Universities vary, most of them being quite good. I think that the key to solid learning is establishing a constant and equal amount of attention with the student, and helping them to realize why and how retaining information can be helpful. In an ideal setting, the best way that I have found to help a student retain information is for the student to learn it without viewing it as something to be learned. If the student finds it interesting, or can relate it to themselves in some form or fashion, they will more readily retain what they have learned and put it to use. This brings me to my next point, putting the subject information to use. Students need to see past the 'chore' of learning, and find practical uses for the things that they learn. Not only does this compliment the theory behind what they learn, it also gives the student a good memory and feel for what they are doing. Just my 2 cents as an educator. |
Re: Equality
Is streaming in education good or bad in people's opinion? I think for one that it's a good thing.
Pardon me for trying to state something that seems obvious but surely if you have classes that attempt to maximise the 'potential' of groups of different ability levels (while allowing for movement between them) can only help to achieve 'equality'. The question to me is how you stream. Is it by subject, or in fact by the whole curriculum that is on offer (are there children in education that might be better off learning a trade than doing any serious academics, for example). I'm sure that the level of opportunity to move into different classes is also a key factor as people generally develop at different times etc. |
Re: Equality
Quote:
I can not back this up with statistics, and I very much doubt that there has been done research on this. However I have an uncle who is employed in a company that seems to follow that recipe, and I rarely see him because he's working all the time. This is definitely not a future I picture for myself - two week summer vacation seems too little for me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously I agree about changing our trade barriers, but this is not necessarely a working solution. Selling raw materials to other countries will not make you rich - selling finished products will. If they sell raw materials wich are then made into products in the west, will they buy these products from the west at a higher cost? Establishing some industry there needs to be done, and to achieve this they will need "an elite" (as described above, this is a bad word for it. But they would need the "right people" to get started). If they can turn their raw materials into products themselves, and sell to other countries, they will be far better off. This is why it is so vital that there are various classes, if you want to call it that. They will need people with a talent for management, and financial abilities - they already have manpower. What they need is guidance and initiative, I think. I am not so sure that I agree with the second part. This is partly because of reasons that could be called egocentric, since I don't want immigrants to come to this country and take jobs that my friends, my family or I would need. Unless the economy needs it, I don't think it would be very good to get a lot more immigrants into our country - people without jobs often means more crime, and it is also a strain on the society in other aspects. As opposed to this, I would sooner be inclined to send more aid. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for egalitarianism, I think it sounds like a good idea that is hard to apply to reality. This is because different ways of applying it might conflict with others (there is also the option that I misunderstood the whole thing, and it is actually perfectly applicable.). |
Re: Equality
Quote:
As for the attention bit of it, that is also not how it is around here. If you are not catching on to reading and writing, for instance, you might find that you get hooked up to a computer and told to play educational games here. My sister did (she is only nine, but I can tell already that she will not get a higher education - except maybe in art or something like that), and she is regularly playing these games with a group of kids that have a hard time learning maths, and other basic skills. I didn't see a computer at school before I was 16, neither did my brother. If there are hopeless students, they will be followed up by a social program, as well as teachers and staff at the school. If you want a year off school - just be absent and say you have depressions. Your school will set you up with a shrink, and when you're ready to start again, they will put you on a special program (I have a good friend who has been doing this for years). Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018