The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 102
  1. #76
    Rollin Dubs HORNEDFROGS07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    0

    counterbalance

    The smith at my gym simply has racks on the back side of it to put counterbalance weight on, so that it doesn't tilt; no counterbalance on the bar itself.
    Vincere aut mori

    "The best inspiration is not to outdo others, but to outdo ourselves."

    "From the inside looking out, you can't explain it; from the outside looking in, you can't understand it."

  2. #77
    260(-62) from 193 from 275
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Oshawa-->Toronto
    Posts
    0
    the counterbalance is never on the bar itself

    it's inside the frame

    I believe it's suspended by a cable

    The Fitness Industry is a 1 billion dollar industry.
    --Dairy Queens Blizzard pulls in 3/4 of a billion.
    --------------We are the elite.------------

  3. #78
    Gonnabebig Member JuniorMint6669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    1,697
    Thx for the info holto- next time I do my jumps Ill see if it says how much assistance it gives. If its anything like yours (40 lbs) Im really not jump squatting that much at all... but I guess if it still works, thats all that matters

  4. #79
    3:16
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,254
    Originally posted by Holto
    the counterbalance is never on the bar itself

    it's inside the frame

    I believe it's suspended by a cable
    if thats all the difference is, i have used both. neither give you any balance it self.

    so if you have a counter balanced machine all you do is add more weight then? then problem solved. but you can still do more than free weight as you do not have to stop the weight moving back wards or forwards.
    my exprience - joined gym 10 years ago, 6 1/2 years hard weight training exprience.

  5. #80
    Rollin Dubs HORNEDFROGS07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    0
    You can definitely squat more with smiths than free: 450 vs. 350ish
    Vincere aut mori

    "The best inspiration is not to outdo others, but to outdo ourselves."

    "From the inside looking out, you can't explain it; from the outside looking in, you can't understand it."

  6. #81
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    1. Can anyone tell me the names of these "stabilizer muscles" which are apparently so important to train while training the quads, hams, and glutes?

    2. How exactly does a Smith machine lock you into a restrictive ROM considering the fact that a squat is a compound movement in which the ankle, knee, hip, and spine all move in their natural planes based on individual body mechanics? What exactly is "restricted"?

    3. Why would an inch of arc (which may or may not exist in the free squat, depending on the body mechanics of the individual) make such a difference in ROM?

    4. If the necessity of balancing the weight is taken out of the equation, isn't the range of motion actually LESS RESTRICTED in the Smith machine movement?

  7. #82
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    If no one has an answer to these questions, then maybe these foolish myths have finally died, at last.

  8. #83
    Senior Member Raleighwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Raleighwood, NC
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    If no one has an answer to these questions, then maybe these foolish myths have finally died, at last.
    No, I think that everyone has figured out the smith machine is inferior to free weight training in regards to sports performance and functional mobility.

    Your muscles are trained (and adapt) specifically to the way it's loaded. When you squat with free weights, your nervous system is required to balance the load through your whole body, through multiple planes.

    As opposed to a smith machine, where you are in a fixed vertical plane that completely negates any requirement to balance/remain stable.

    The stabilizer muscles aren't necessarily different individual muscles.( Although they can be , like the glueteus medius.) It's more with how your body is able to efficiently transfer/alternate the forces used by the collective muscles to balance and remain stable through the full range of movement. When you use the smith machine it effectively removes this requirement.

    With the smith machine you can definitely train a stronger/bigger muscle. However, if you go to use this muscle in an environment where stability and balance are required (e.g. during rotational or tri-planer movement), then the chance of a muscle/movement miss-fire and subsequent torn tissue is MUCH higher than with free weight training.

    Also, how can you explain why movements are EASIER on a smith machine? Do you honestly think that a 400lb squat on a smith machine is as impressive as 400lb free weight squat? Do you really think athletes trained with a smith machine, as opposed to traditional barbell/free weight training, will perform better? Why do almost all S&C coaches use barbells/freeweights to train their athletes?
    Last edited by Raleighwood; 12-05-2010 at 07:16 AM.
    My 10 week cut results

    "Sweat in training so you don't bleed in battle."

  9. #84
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    No, I think that everyone has figured out the smith machine is inferior to free weight training in regards to sports performance and functional mobility.


    Inferior in what respect?

    Your muscles are trained (and adapt) specifically to the way it's loaded. When you squat with free weights, your nervous system is required to balance the load through your whole body, through multiple planes.
    As opposed to a smith machine, where you are in a fixed vertical plane that completely negates any requirement to balance/remain stable.


    I'm sure that "everyone has figured out" that the Smith machine balances the load for you. The questions were how does that restrict the ROM, and what is the significance of the stabilizing muscles? Of course it doesn't limit the range of motion, and the fact that you don't have to balance the load with "stabilizing muscles" allows you to stimulate the TARGET muscles more intensely.

    In what sport other than powerlifting does one need to squat with a one-inch bar resting on their traps?

    With the smith machine you can definitely train a stronger/bigger muscle. However, if you go to use this muscle in an environment where stability and balance are required (e.g. during rotational or tri-planer movement), then the chance of a muscle/movement miss-fire and subsequent torn tissue is MUCH higher than with free weight training.


    Sometimes you may want to train a stronger muscle. Or you may want to squat to stimulate HGH and testosterone. If you aren't concerned with balancing the load you are free to work with maximum intensity. I'm not arguing whether a free squat or a Smith squat is "better" than the other for some undefined conditioning purpose. That would be as stupid as arguing whether vanilla or strawberry is "better".

    I'm trying to dispel the often quoted and regurgitated myth that the Smith machine limits the ROM because the weight itself moves in a vertical plane. It doesn't.

    And I'm also adressing the specious argument of the necessity of training "stablilizing muscles" while targeting the quads, hams, and glutes.

    Also, how can you explain why movements are EASIER on a smith machine?


    Because #1 you have to add another 34 to 44 lbs. just to make up for the counter balanced bar, and #2 you don't have to tentatively balance the load with your core so you can go out all on maximum muscle stimulating intensity on the actual LIFT.


    Do you honestly think that a 400lb squat on a smith machine is as impressive as 400lb free weight squat?


    Personally, I don't go to the gym to "be impressed" by other dudes squatting, and I don't squat to "impress" other dudes.


    Do you really think athletes trained with a smith machine, as opposed to traditional barbell/free weight training, will perform better?

    At what? Isn't that the key question?

    Why do almost all S&C coaches use barbells/freeweights to train their athletes?


    Because a bar is cheaper than a Smith?
    Why do almost all Muslims face Mecca when they pray?
    Why do almost all old men at the mall wear Members Only jackets?

    Have you reduced this discussion to an argumentum ad populum? At one point in history all football players played with leather helmets. Does that mean that leather helmets are superior?

  10. #85
    A gallon a day, everyday! ThomasG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Raleighwood View Post
    No, I think that everyone has figured out the smith machine is inferior to free weight training in regards to sports performance and functional mobility.

    Your muscles are trained (and adapt) specifically to the way it's loaded. When you squat with free weights, your nervous system is required to balance the load through your whole body, through multiple planes.

    As opposed to a smith machine, where you are in a fixed vertical plane that completely negates any requirement to balance/remain stable.

    The stabilizer muscles aren't necessarily different individual muscles.( Although they can be , like the glueteus medius.) It's more with how your body is able to efficiently transfer/alternate the forces used by the collective muscles to balance and remain stable through the full range of movement. When you use the smith machine it effectively removes this requirement.

    With the smith machine you can definitely train a stronger/bigger muscle. However, if you go to use this muscle in an environment where stability and balance are required (e.g. during rotational or tri-planer movement), then the chance of a muscle/movement miss-fire and subsequent torn tissue is MUCH higher than with free weight training.

    Also, how can you explain why movements are EASIER on a smith machine? Do you honestly think that a 400lb squat on a smith machine is as impressive as 400lb free weight squat? Do you really think athletes trained with a smith machine, as opposed to traditional barbell/free weight training, will perform better? Why do almost all S&C coaches use barbells/freeweights to train their athletes?
    :handclap:

    Also I find it interesting a lot of people are saying they can smith squat more than they can free squat. I'm the complete opposite by far. I was forced to use a smith machine for a couple workouts last year and I had to use dramatically less weight. It is also a lot more harsh on the knees.
    My Journal
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
    you're an intelligent guy... but you're also half #$%&ing crazy... and that my friend is the formula for a great powerlifter.
    23 Years old
    5'10 198'er
    Squat-565(wraps) 560(Raw)
    Bench:365(raw)
    Deadlift:555(raw)
    Front Squat-465x1 (wraps) 405x2 (raw)
    AtLarge Nutrition Optimize your body and Support WBB

  11. #86
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Carmel, IN
    Posts
    70

    The infamous stabilizer muscles...

    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    1. Can anyone tell me the names of these "stabilizer muscles" which are apparently so important to train while training the quads, hams, and glutes?

    2. How exactly does a Smith machine lock you into a restrictive ROM considering the fact that a squat is a compound movement in which the ankle, knee, hip, and spine all move in their natural planes based on individual body mechanics? What exactly is "restricted"?

    3. Why would an inch of arc (which may or may not exist in the free squat, depending on the body mechanics of the individual) make such a difference in ROM?

    4. If the necessity of balancing the weight is taken out of the equation, isn't the range of motion actually LESS RESTRICTED in the Smith machine movement?
    1. The reason they're never named is because there are so many.

    Everything is intertwined (and everyone should know that thanks to Thomas Myers). Psoas major and minor and the extension fibers (deep fibers) of glute max are good for "sucking" the hip up into the acetabulum.

    All of the really deep muscles like gluteus minimus, piriformis, superior gemellus, obturator internus, inferior gemellus, obturator externus, and quadratus femoris.

    The pelvis has a direct link to the hip, so anything that control the pelvis falls in as well: external obliques, internal obliques, transverse abdominis, quadratus lumborum, rectus femoris, rectus abdominis, iliacus, psoas major, psoas minor, biceps femoris, semitendinosis, semimembranosus...

    Anything that attaches on the spine helps stabilize the spine. Latissimus dorsi, trapezius, rhomboid major, rhomboid minor, serratus anterior, serratus posterior inferior, multifidus, longissimus, spinalis, iliocostalis...

    Anything on the rib cages is linked to the pelvis through the spine.

    These stabilizers are only important if you want to be able to move. If you just want to look big, have fun with your machines.

    2. The bar is locked. It cannot move side to side, nor front to back. Squat in a smith machine, and then with a free bar. They are NOT the same. The path of travel of the bar and shoulders is fixed, which throws your sense of balance around everywhere.

    3. I'm not reading this whole thread so I'm not sure of the arc you're talking about.

    4. I would agree with that... mostly. I don't think EVERY joint would see more movement, but you could arrange it (sit back) to get more ROM at the hips and knees, for instance.

  12. #87
    Senior Member Raleighwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Raleighwood, NC
    Posts
    759
    Norsewulf,

    It seems that you have your mind made up about smith machine superiority. Good luck with that.

    The barbell is superior to athletic development because it trains all 3 planes of motion. The range of motion is greater because you have to keep yourself stable through the XYZ axis, not just the Y axis. When you play a sport, you are moving up/down, sideways, and rotationally. A smith machine simply can not provide a similar stimulus, barbell is much more specific (although not completely).

    The only advantage of the smith machine (if you want to even call it an advantage) is that it allows you to train only the prime movers. You can build size and strength (to be used on a smith machine) however the transfer to anything functional will be minimal.

    According to some recent research stimulating hgh and testosterone release from exercise is not a significant indicator of muscle growth/strength stimulus. Do a google search on it and you can find it, it's been causing some recent controversy. I don't really know how I feel about it.

    If you are simply training for muscle size with disregard for mobility, stability and functional strength; keep on using the smith machine and other machines.
    My 10 week cut results

    "Sweat in training so you don't bleed in battle."

  13. #88
    Senior Member Phenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,062
    I won't even hang my towel on a smith machine.

    Didn't someone on this forum create an amazing quote about the smith machine? Something along the lines "Never use that machine. Don't even look at it, not even in the mirror." Don't remember it exactly but it was a great one.
    Age: 23 - Weight: 237 lbs - Height: 6'1''

    S(atg) - B - DL
    375 - 335 - 515

    "Gaining weight and having bigger body will make you look great on any clothing. Men with strong body are very attractive to women. General people tend to admire big muscle too." -mbijay

  14. #89
    Moderator joey54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Palmyra, PA
    Posts
    5,730
    norsewolf, I am not certain of your intentions. Did you join the forum and bump a 7 year old thread solely to set people straight on the use of the smith? I am not as anti-smith as others, but you are going to be fighting a losing battle here. Unless you can come up with something substantial beyond using leather football helmets as an analogy. And, one could argue those would be better in this day and age, because those monsters wouldn't all be leading with their heads.


    AtLarge Nutrition Supplements – Get the best supplements and help support Wannabebig!

    Just get under the bar!

  15. #90
    House Lannister
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by joey54 View Post
    norsewolf, I am not certain of your intentions. Did you join the forum and bump a 7 year old thread solely to set people straight on the use of the smith? I am not as anti-smith as others, but you are going to be fighting a losing battle here. Unless you can come up with something substantial beyond using leather football helmets as an analogy. And, one could argue those would be better in this day and age, because those monsters wouldn't all be leading with their heads.
    +one

  16. #91
    student of the game Runty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Phenom View Post
    Didn't someone on this forum create an amazing quote about the smith machine? Something along the lines "Never use that machine. Don't even look at it, not even in the mirror." Don't remember it exactly but it was a great one.
    Someone did indeed
    "Fine, if I'm not allowed to light it on fire, can my imaginary friend?"

  17. #92
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    Norsewulf,

    It seems that you have your mind made up about smith machine superiority. Good luck with that.
    I wonder why you would think that, especially after I clearly stated that I think it is pointless...I may have said "stupid"...to argue that one is "better" or "superior" to the other in a general sense.

    The barbell is superior to athletic development because it trains all 3 planes of motion. The range of motion is greater because you have to keep yourself stable through the XYZ axis, not just the Y axis. When you play a sport, you are moving up/down, sideways, and rotationally. A smith machine simply can not provide a similar stimulus, barbell is much more specific (although not completely).
    Okay, let's review what "range of motion" means:

    It is the distance and direction that a joint can be moved. Watch a person squatting with a free bar, and a person squatting with a Smith bar. What is the difference in range of motion? You can go as far down and as far up with the Smith as with the free. If you are squatting with proper FORM you are not moving much at all from side to side or front to back with a free bar.

  18. #93
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    norsewolf, I am not certain of your intentions. Did you join the forum and bump a 7 year old thread solely to set people straight on the use of the smith?

    Is that not an acceptable reason to join the forum? I like to discuss those issues which interest me and to which I can contribute something useful. What would you rather I talk about?

  19. #94
    Senior Member Raleighwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Raleighwood, NC
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    I wonder why you would think that, especially after I clearly stated that I think it is pointless...I may have said "stupid"...to argue that one is "better" or "superior" to the other in a general sense.



    Okay, let's review what "range of motion" means:

    It is the distance and direction that a joint can be moved. Watch a person squatting with a free bar, and a person squatting with a Smith bar. What is the difference in range of motion? You can go as far down and as far up with the Smith as with the free. If you are squatting with proper FORM you are not moving much at all from side to side or front to back with a free bar.
    You do realize that a smith machine has a FIXED range of motion in the Y-axis. To move a barbell up and down, you have to balance the load in all 3 planes and ranges of motion.

    Yes, with good technique you are supposed to be moving only up and down. However, just because you are only squatting up and down doesn't mean your body isn't stabilizing and balancing through the other planes and ranges of motion.

    Further, when you squat on a smith machine, changing your back/chest/hip angle mid-set/rep is much different than doing so with a free weight. Further, when driving that weight up on a smith machine you can push at various angles and still produce un upwardish force and move the bar. This will cause a greater sheering force on your joints.

    As opposed to a barbell where if you aren't pushing and stabilizing/balancing that weight near perfectly your form will deteriorate obviously.

    I think I've done a decent job explaining why smith machine is less productive and safe as proper barbell training. I am no long going to waste my time to responding.
    My 10 week cut results

    "Sweat in training so you don't bleed in battle."

  20. #95
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    1. The reason they're never named is because there are so many.
    ...Or because the argument sounds much more plausible until you begin to address the muscles specifically.

    Everything is intertwined (and everyone should know that thanks to Thomas Myers). Psoas major and minor and the extension fibers (deep fibers) of glute max are good for "sucking" the hip up into the acetabulum.

    All of the really deep muscles like gluteus minimus, piriformis, superior gemellus, obturator internus, inferior gemellus, obturator externus, and quadratus femoris.

    The pelvis has a direct link to the hip, so anything that control the pelvis falls in as well: external obliques, internal obliques, transverse abdominis, quadratus lumborum, rectus femoris, rectus abdominis, iliacus, psoas major, psoas minor, biceps femoris, semitendinosis, semimembranosus...

    Anything that attaches on the spine helps stabilize the spine. Latissimus dorsi, trapezius, rhomboid major, rhomboid minor, serratus anterior, serratus posterior inferior, multifidus, longissimus, spinalis, iliocostalis...

    Anything on the rib cages is linked to the pelvis through the spine.

    These stabilizers are only important if you want to be able to move. If you just want to look big, have fun with your machines.
    Most of thse muscles are just as active in the Smith squat. Others while acting as stabilizers in the free squat are not being stimulated that much ESPECIALLY if one is using proper form and not having to catch oneself and overcorrect an imbalanced squat.

    I never argued that ANY muscle is not "important" and I don't intend to have my spinal erectors surgically removed. You are aware that there are exercises which target these muscles more directly in their own full ranges of motion?


    2. The bar is locked. It cannot move side to side, nor front to back. Squat in a smith machine, and then with a free bar. They are NOT the same. The path of travel of the bar and shoulders is fixed, which throws your sense of balance around everywhere.
    That's like saying that since a pull up bar is "locked in place" that it somehow limits the range of motion. It is the body's own joints that are moving.

    Also, I'm guessing that you don't perform military presses while seated on an exercise ball. Why not? Wouldn't it stimulate more stablilizing muscles?

    You probably don't do it because it's not only less safe than being "locked in" to a stable bench, but would not allow you to use as much weight to stimulate the target muscle group.

    3. I'm not reading this whole thread so I'm not sure of the arc you're talking about.
    We're taking about the hypotheticaldifference in the path that the bar takes between a free squat and a Smith squat. Study video of olympic squatters and describe the path that the free bar takes.

    4. I would agree with that... mostly. I don't think EVERY joint would see more movement, but you could arrange it (sit back) to get more ROM at the hips and knees, for instance.
    Yes, exactly. The key to using a Smith machine correctly is foot position. If it hurts someone's knees, for example, it's because their feet are in the wrong place.

  21. #96
    Moderator joey54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Palmyra, PA
    Posts
    5,730
    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    Is that not an acceptable reason to join the forum? I like to discuss those issues which interest me and to which I can contribute something useful. What would you rather I talk about?
    How about you answer my questions first, because right now it seems as if you are just trolling.


    AtLarge Nutrition Supplements – Get the best supplements and help support Wannabebig!

    Just get under the bar!

  22. #97
    Moderator Off Road's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,887
    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    Yes, exactly. The key to using a Smith machine correctly is foot position. If it hurts someone's knees, for example, it's because their feet are in the wrong place.
    And that is exactly the reason I don't care for that machine, you cannot adjust your body position during the lift to compensate for a less than perfect setup. You have to stop the set to adjust, When on a free weight squat you are making adjustments frequently with your hips, back, leg angles, etc...and it's "natural." Also, the proper setup on that machine isn't the way you'd want to lift loads outside of the gym, feet forward.
    _________
    ______
    ___

    Off Road Journal

    http://www.wannabebig.com/logo/alnlogo_white.gif

    AtLarge Nutrition Supplements – Get the best supplements and help support Wannabebig!

  23. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    323
    Firstly I don't oppose the use of machines including the Smith.

    With that said hamstring activation is lessened with the Smith because you're able to lean back into the bar without having to activate the posterior chain - imagine a true box squat where you sit back and the required co-contraction of the hamstrings and glutes to enable this.
    This does not happen with the Smith and the force couple around the knee joint is thrown off because the hamstrings aren't activated.

    Is this bad? Potentially for the knee. But if focusing on the quads is what you want the Smith will do it. Depends why you're using it whether it's 'good' or not.

  24. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    At a slight angle to the universe
    Posts
    1,816
    I'm not going to join the fray because others will answer these questions with sane and educated responses, however, this needs clearing up:

    Quote Originally Posted by norsewulf View Post
    The questions were how does that restrict the ROM, and what is the significance of the stabilizing muscles?

    And I'm also adressing the specious argument of the necessity of training "stablilizing muscles" while targeting the quads, hams, and glutes.
    I had a friend who trained exclusively on the bench press machine, and got a noticeably bigger and stronger upper-body from it. One day, I got him on the free weight bench. We loaded up the barbell bench press with a reasonable weight, he unracked it and he literally lost control of the bar and it flew over the side of the bench. He had NO ability to stabilize the weight. True story. He could have been badly hurt.

    So there you go, a real-life example that addresses "the specious argument of the necessity of training 'stablilizing muscles'". I can possibly buy some reasons for being pro-smith machine - people here aren't as religiously anti-smith machine as you might expect - but think about what you're saying. Are you honestly trying to claim that balance, stability and real-world strength are somehow undesirable? Like, why would you not want to increase the efficiency of your body?
    Last edited by J.C.; 12-06-2010 at 07:00 AM.

  25. #100
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by joey54 View Post
    How about you answer my questions first, because right now it seems as if you are just trolling.
    I think I did answer your question, sir. Yes, I found this thread regarding Smith machine squats and that is how I discovered your forum in the first place. The subject interests me, and I felt that I had something useful to contribute to it. Is that okay?

    Are there certain subjects that you don't want me to discuss? Is this one of those places where if you don't agree with everything the moderator believes you are not welcome?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •