Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Thread Started on Dec 23, 2006, 1:54pm »
Hi Everyone
FIRST, Let's deal with the principle of land title since so much of your post is directly involved with it. You post shows you do NOT HAVE a knowledge of the subject so I shall give you this knowledge as follows,
Some say,
Quote:
the land was given to the jews by allah that's true but they turned their back on him and they were punished , that land wasn't theirs for thousands of years and even before that it was kanaanites land who are the forfathers of the arabs.
But they failed to mention that the 'kanaanites' did NOT have title, but only illegal posession. Let's look at the facts,
Quote:
Many do NOT have an accurate understanding of land title and of squatters who squat on land to which others hold legal title. This article will deal with the facts of a specific situation of squatters who have been squatting on the land of others, in many cases, for centuries, and now want to act criminally against those having title even though the rightful title holder is willing to give them a large portion of the land.
Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, one may be in possession of land, but not title as they are two distinct things as will shortly be shown.
POSESSION AND TITLE TO PROPERTY ARE NOT THE SAME:
Let's illustrate this with an example provided by an encyclopedia, << The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.
For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.[source - The Ungrateful Squatters and Land Title: at,
One can have possession without having a valid title to land. A good example is that of nomadic tribes in the middle east and elsewhere such as the Berbers and the New World Indians, they had possession, but not title to the land they roamed. [Special note - in the early 1800's some New World Indians were granted title in the form of a titled reservation.]
The first granting of title occurred around 1,500 B.C. when the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave land title to the ancient Hebrews, nation of Israel, to perpetuity. Before that no one had title, but only possession of land; to wit, that was the beginning of land titlement. And this was by the highest possible authority of all, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the highest authority in the universe so his absolute right to grant title to whom he pleased is of course beyond challenge.
Also, the soundness of title depends on several factors or conditions precedent:
First, the higher the position of the granter the more legitimate the title is with the highest granter being, of course, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the supreme being. This followed by Emperors, Kings or Caliphs, and Presidents or Sultans in that order.
Second, the earliest granting of title takes precedence over later grants of title.
SPECIFICS AND EXAMPLES:
Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Let's illustrate this with an example provided by an encyclopedia, << The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.
For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on centuries earlier, illegally taken in unlawful warfare, etc., but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.
A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF POSESSION STOLEN IN WARFARE:
A Roman emperor had conveyed title to land in Spain to his subjects who were in possession in the early part of the common error, but in 711 A.D. much of this land was stolen from the possessors. Let's look at the historical notes on this from a Muslim source, www.sunnahonline.com , <<" By 700 CE, with famine in the Toledo, strife among the aristocracy and chaos throughout the peninsula, the Visigothic kingdom was falling apart. This paved the way for the Muslim invasion of 711, which set Spain's destiny quite apart from the rest of Europe.
Following the death of the Prophet (saaw) in 632 CE, the Arabs had spread through the Middle East and North Africa, bringing Islam with them. According to myth, they were ushered onto the Iberian Peninsula by the sexual exploits of the last Visigoth king, Roderick. Ballads and chronicles relate how he had seduced the young Florinda, daughter of Julian, Visigothic governor of Ceuta in north Africa: and how Julian sought revenge by approaching the Muslims with a plan to invade Spain. In dull fact, Julian probably just wanted help in a struggle for the Visigoth throne.
In 711 CE Tariq ibn Ziyad, the governor of Tangiers, landed in Gibraltar with around 10,000 men, mostly Berbers (indigenous North Africans). He had some of Roderick's Visigoth rivals as allies. In the same or following year in the Cadiz province, Roderick's army was decimated and he is thought to have drowned as he fled. The Visigothic survivors fled to the north of Spain, and within a few years, the Muslims had taken over the rest of the Iberian Peninsula bar a few areas in the Asturian Mountains bordering France" [source - http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_intro.htm]>>; these Muslims became possessors of the land of Spain, but they did NOT hold title, and were eventually thrown out and the land returned to those holding legitimate title with this being concluded around 1492 A.D. A wrongful possession rectified.
This same wrongful situation occurred elsewhere with possession being gained once more in warfare and violence, now let's look at another example from a Muslim source, www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/ , <<" In April 1453, the Turks laid siege to Constantinople. Despite the heavy Turkish bombardment of the walls, the inhabitants of the city were able to repair the fortifications every night. The Byzantines were exhausted but took solace in the old legend that Constantinople would never fall while the Moon was waxing. Then, on the night of 22 May, the Moon rose in eclipse and their morale was crushed. Mohammed knew of the legend and waited a few days before starting a fresh attack. During the battle a small gate was left open by accident but it was all the Turks needed. The sack of Constantinople lasted three days, as the Moon waned." [source - http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/]>>; unfortunately the legitimate title holders have not regained rightful possession to their legitimate property as yet from those holding possession by force of arms. Yet the property and title really belongs to the Byzantines who centuries earlier had been given title by a Roman Emperor [Note, earlier title granting takes precedence over later title granting.].[source - Possession is NOT The Same As Title to Land: at,
Of course many members of Islam reject what the Bible says, but is this reasonable considering that their Quran like the Book of Mormon is nothing but a knockoff of the Bible? Now the well known rule of precedence is that the earlier document shall have precedence over the later that used information from it just as the earlier granting of land title takes precedence in any title search or action at law over the later.[source - Hezbollah is Responsible For All and Should Pay For All: at,
Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, one may be in possession of land, but not title as they are two distinct things as will shortly be shown.
Possession and title are NOT the same thing:
Let's show this fact that possession and title are not the same thing with illustrattion example provided by an encyclopedia, << The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.
For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.
Soundness of title - what it depends on:
The soundness of title depends on several factors or conditions precedent:
First, the higher the position of the granter the more legitimate the title is with the highest granter being, of course, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the supreme being. This followed by Emperors, Kings or Caliphs, and Presidents or Sultans in that order.
Second, the earliest granting of title takes precedence over later grants of title.
SPECIFIC GRANTING OF TITLE TO ALL LAND IN PALESTINE:
Now let's look at who was the granter of title to land in Palestine and to whom:
Genesis 15:18 records the conferring of legitimate title to the Promise Land to the Hebrews (Jews) by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael as follows for a record to all men for all of time, "In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (American Standard Version; ASV). That this was to be their land per the promise of the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael is also made clear in Deuteronomy 10:11, "And Jehovah said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people; and they shall go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them.." (ASV). And, this fact is even shown in the New Testament at Hebrews 11:9, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:" (ASV).
Now the "Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish" says this of the inheritance of the Hebrews, the promised land, <<"The land of promise is constantly spoken of as the inheritance of Israel: the land flowing with milk and honey was given to them by God. #De 4:21 Ps 105:11, &c. So when Israel returns to take possession of the land in a future day, it is still called their inheritance. #Eze 45:1, &c. This all shews that they were and will be an earthly people, but God blessed them on earth in relationship with Himself as Jehovah, and will again bless them on earth when they own the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. In connection with this God calls Israel His inheritance: He hath chosen them for His own inheritance. #Ps 33:12 78:62, &c.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish]">>
In fact the true God (YHWH) of Abraham had very specific instructions with respect the land in the area he had given them in lawful perpetuity as the supreme being, the maker of all there is as shown at Deuteronomy 19:14, "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it." (ASV); and Job 24:1-2, "Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that know him not see his days? 2 Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof." (ASV); and Proverbs 22:28, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (ASV); and Proverbs 23:10, "Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:" (ASV). But squatters have violated all these righteous commands of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham. And as shown by Easton's Bible Dictionary, <<" Landmarks could not be removed without incurring the severe displeasure of God." [source - Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary]>>.
Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Re: Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Reply #1 on Dec 23, 2006, 1:55pm »
Part Two on Land Title
Quote:
In fact, the Eclectic Notes on the Bible on Deuteronomy 19:14 notes, <<" Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark "Thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance," shows that there is a divine apportionment which is not to be interfered with. The inheritance is common to all; all are sons, children, brethren, and have a common portion in Christ and in the Spirit. But in detail each has an assigned portion, and it is to be our care, according to Deuteronomy, that our neighbour has his full portion. This is in keeping with the spirit of grace and consideration for the good of others which marks the book. We have no daughters of Zelophehad here desiring inheritance for themselves; our care here is that our neighbour's inheritance shall not be infringed upon. The inheritance is enjoyed in a neighbourly way; I can only enjoy your bit of it as you enjoy it, and therefore if I remove your landmark I really defraud myself! It is our interest to see that our neighbours enjoy their full assigned portion. In great part we enjoy the inheritance through our brethren; it is blessed to see them enjoying their portion; no one moving spiritually would wish to curtail it in the least degree. This stands in marked contrast with slaying our neighbour, even though such a thing should be done unwittingly. It emphasises the neighbourly character in which the inheritance is taken up. We get on together by fully recognising the portion assigned to each.
If any one's landmark is removed it is not only a wrong done to him, but it tends to impoverish all by interfering with the way in which God has given things. The clerical principle has greatly tended to remove landmarks, and has deprived the people of God of what divine favour would have made available in the brethren generally. The arrangements of men, and human order, are simply a removal of landmarks "which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance." The commandments of the Lord #1Co 14:37 are fixed landmarks, and are not to be disregarded; they would give to each one his true spiritual place amongst the brethren for the benefit of all. Many of our neighbours have had their landmarks removed, and we all suffer from it, but our care should be to give full place to what is assigned by God to each. The inheritance will only be truly and spiritually enjoyed as we are set together in affection, and each holds his portion in relation to the common joy. To be self-centred, or to move independently of one's brethren, is really to lose the good of what God has given to others for our benefit as joint-heirs with them." [source - Eclectic Notes - eclectic Notes on the Bible]>>.
Another Bible dictionary says, <<"<<"Promised Land held in trust. Even the people Israel, to whom God had given the land for them to enjoy as landowners, were told by Jehovah that they were not actually owners of it but only held it in trust. He said concerning the sale of a family land estate: "So the land should not be sold in perpetuity, because the land is mine. For you are alien residents and settlers from my standpoint." (Le 25:23) God had ousted the Canaanites from the land for their disgusting practices. He warned he would also take away all title from Israel and drive them out of the land if they followed such practices, and when they later did, they were sent into exile. (Le 18:24-30; 25:18, 19; 26:27-33; Jer 52:27) After 70 years of desolation of their land, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., God mercifully reestablished them, but this time under Gentile domination. Eventually, in 70 C.E., the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and scattered its people.
Within the nation, tribes were assigned sections of the land or cities inside the boundaries of other tribes. Priests and Levites had cities with pasture grounds. (Jos 15-21) In turn, within the tribes families were allotted inheritances. These divisions became smaller as families subdivided their own allotments because of increase in numbers. This resulted in thorough cultivation and use of the land. Inheritances were not allowed to circulate from one tribe to another. To prevent this, women who inherited land (because there were no living brothers) had to marry within the tribe to hold their inheritance.-Nu 36:1-12." [source - Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>.
Earliest grant of title takes precedence over later grants:
Now, how does this apply to the granting of title to the land of Palestine? Well the grant of title to Palestine is the oldest recorded grant of title in all human history and occurred about 1,500 B.C., by the creator of all there is, and was in fulfillment of an earlier promise that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael had made to Abraham. Therefore, with respect the land of Palestine, the land was granted to the Hebrews, the descendents of Abraham through Isaac, and it was granted before any other land was granted to anyone. So title to the land of Palestine was granted by the highest possible authority and was the first grant of legitimate title ever made; therefore, the grantees, the Hebrews, have the strongest possible title due to the fact the grantor was the highest possible authority and it was granted at the earliest time.
Of course some try to deny that by questioning the Bible, but their objection is without standing. Let's look at the facts. Of course many members of Islam reject what the Bible says, but is this reasonable considering that their Quran like the Book of Mormon is nothing but a knockoff of the Bible? Now the well known rule of precedence is that the earlier document shall have precedence over the later that used information from it just as the earlier granting of land title takes precedence in any title search or action at law over the later. Many overlook the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman as was the Quran and the Book of Mormon. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time. [source - Whose Land Is It? A Study of The Land of Palestine at,
Thus as can clearly be seen, The first granting of title occurred around 1,500 B.C. when the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave land title to the ancient Hebrews, nation of Israel, to perpetuity in an everlasting covenant. Before that no one had title, but only possession of land; to wit, that was the beginning of land titlement. And this was by the highest possible authority of all, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the highest authority in the universe so his absolute right to grant title to whom he pleased is of course beyond challenge.
So why the argument over whom Palestine rightfully belongs today? Because many Ishmaelites, the greedy ones, want to destroy world peace and tranquility due to their greed for land that is NOT theirs. The Ishmaelites control over 98 percent of the middle east, and some are so greedy they do not want their brother tribe, the Hebrews, even to have the less than two (2) percent of the land that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave to them in perpetuity. This is the crux of the problem - GREED.[source - Islam is Delusional - Does Not Recognize Facts at,
Let's first gain an understanding of the granting of land title. Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Land title is different from possession. Let's illustrate this with an example provided by an encyclopedia, << The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.
For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>
Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way. [source - Palestine Belongs to The Hebrews Per The Everlasting Covenant With The Seeds of Isaac, NOT Ishmael: at,
Re: Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Reply #2 on Jan 9, 2007, 9:13am »
So it provides an ample reason to the Native Americans to kick the behinds of white ppl and claim their land back and deliver them back to the shores of River Rhine where they used to live before????
Thanks for a very informative article and I wonder if the Australians and New Zealanders and South Africans Whites and Dutch soon would be falling in the same lines.
Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Re: Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Reply #3 on Jan 9, 2007, 4:00pm »
Hi Silkworm
Once more your are in error and do NOT understand land title as shown by your statement,
Quote:
So it provides an ample reason to the Native Americans to kick the behinds of white ppl and claim their land back and deliver them back to the shores of River Rhine where they used to live before????
Thanks for a very informative article and I wonder if the Australians and New Zealanders and South Africans Whites and Dutch soon would be falling in the same lines.
Nomads never had title to the land thus since they never had it no one could take it from them. Go back and re-read my post and start learning about land title.
You need to go and read,
[[read without fail]] Possession is NOT The Same As Title to Land: at,
Re: Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Reply #4 on Jan 10, 2007, 2:45am »
Whoa, The Whole of European population was nomadic barbarians who lived on land, the Teutonics, Visigoths, Flanders, Normans, Bourbons, Franks, Slavs, Cilesians, Bulgars and Vikings and Britons were basically nomadic tribes, who were, given to their acceptance of Christianity allowed to live on the land - You may be good in Religion but are poor in history and geography.
Do you know how many kinds of Histories we humans gloat over???
Joined: Nov 2006 Gender: Female Posts: 2,203 Karma: 1
Re: Summary on Land Title To Assist Understanding « Reply #5 on Jan 10, 2007, 4:25pm »
Hi Silkworm
Your comment shows you are ignorant of the fact that during the time they were nomads that they did NOT have title. For example, it is well known that nomadic celtics once inhabited Switzerland, parts of France, etc. but being nomads never obtained title. So your statement shows your ignorance of reality with respect title.
Quote:
Whoa, The Whole of European population was nomadic barbarians who lived on land, the Teutonics, Visigoths, Flanders, Normans, Bourbons, Franks, Slavs, Cilesians, Bulgars and Vikings and Britons were basically nomadic tribes, who were, given to their acceptance of Christianity allowed to live on the land - You may be good in Religion but are poor in history and geography.
Do you know how many kinds of Histories we humans gloat over???
Now a question for you. Why are the descendents of Abraham’s son Ishmael so d**n greedy that they want even the small amount of land in the middle east to whom the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, creator of all there is, gave title to the descendents of Abraham’s son Isaac? Greed like this is so bad that the descendents of Abraham’s son Isaac have less than 2 % of the land in the middle east; whereas the descendents of Abraham’s son Ishmael have over 98 % of it, but are extremely greedy even for the very small portion belonging to the descendents of Abraham’s son Isaac. EXPLAIN.
![[Home]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[homepage]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged