Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 350
  1. #1
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Cookie Stuffing by Coupon Craze
    I was about to launch a new test campaign promoting an SAS merchant, and was surprised to find a "coupon affiliate" engaging in a form of "cookie stuffing."

    The site is Coupon Craze -- when I do a Google search, I get to this coupon site, where I can view a number of coupon offers. There are hyperlinks in addition to text "coupon codes" -- but when I attempt to "clip" or "cut" the text, the site automatically launches a new window using an SAS affiliate link. There is also a separate link called "Pop-Up Summary" which opens a small window with coupon details -- but also redirects the main window to launch the merchant site using an SAS link.

    I realize that coupon sites want to "receive credit" for providing coupon info, but as a PPC affiliate, I won't work with merchants who allow their "coupon affiliates" to engage in this type of behavior, which appears to violate SAS rules.
    Last edited by Haiko de Poel, Jr.; October 25th, 2007 at 07:23 PM. Reason: Readded site name

  2. #2
    Troll Killer and best Snooper!
    I decide when the pigs fly!
    Rhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    6,195
    And here I sit as a non-coupon site, non-PPC affiliate wondering how the hell I make any money at all in this business.

    Go get 'em Mark. Perhaps if enough non-coupon site affiliates holler loud enough the networks and merchants will put a stop to this sneaky cookie stuffing behavior.

  3. #3
    Full Member ske9963's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 3rd, 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    369
    Brian might be interested to know about this...
    Ma, where the beer? :escape:

  4. #4
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Yes, of course I sent an email to both SAS and the merchant in question, before posting here.

  5. #5
    Mama in Charge Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea
    And here I sit as a non-coupon site, non-PPC affiliate wondering how the hell I make any money at all in this business.

    Go get 'em Mark. Perhaps if enough non-coupon site affiliates holler loud enough the networks and merchants will put a stop to this sneaky cookie stuffing behavior.
    Coupon site or not, ANYONE can do this. I have a 'coupon' site and have never automatically set a cookie. There are LOTS of people who engage in questionable practices and I would assume most are non coupon sites, since there are probably far more of those than coupon sites. Coupon sites just tend to get noticed more because they are more frequently visited by ABW people than the other sites no one here knows how to locate easily.

    I say 'questionable practices' above because in the prior thread there was discussion about what cookie stuffing is. So IMHO, if it is confusing for anyone, there is a question to be answered. If the TOS are not clear enough, then people need to advocate directly with the people who wrote them to ensure they are refined so there is no question about what cookie stuffing is and isn't.
    Last edited by Anne; September 4th, 2007 at 08:45 AM.

  6. #6
    Troll Killer and best Snooper!
    I decide when the pigs fly!
    Rhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    6,195
    Anne, that's all we've been hearing about lately is cookie stuffing coupon sites. If someone digs up instances of cookie stuffing by non-coupon sites I'll get pissed off about them, too. Doesn't matter to me who's doing it, it's all about how it's done. I want a level playing field for everyone in this business.

  7. #7
    Moderator BurgerBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    jacked by sylon www.sylonddos.weebly.com
    Posts
    9,618
    Wink
    I've gone to no telling how many non-coupon affiliate sites and had cookies stuffed onto my computer.

    Vietnam Veteran 1966-1970 USASA
    ABW Forum Rules - Advertise At ABW

  8. #8
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Like Rhea, I'd be upset at ANY cookie-stuffing, but certainly I'm going to find a coupon site more easily if I search for "merchantname coupon," and so is a consumer.

    If a merchant has a coupon prompt, and if I find cookie-stuffing by coupon affiliates who appear in the top-10 results for "merchantname coupon," then I am NOT going to spend my money to promote that merchant's products, because I know that part of my effort will not be compensated but instead will help reward an unethical cookie-stuffer.

    Clearly, there are worse offenders than the one I've identified here, and certainly even the most unethical cookie-stuffing web site isn't nearly as evil as a "toolbar" or "malware" parasite. But this is the one I found today, whose actions have caused me to change my plans -- I was planning to work for many hours this week to promote this particular merchant's products, but now they are bumped to the bottom of my very long project list.

  9. #9
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    I just went back to make sure I covered this in the Consolidated List of Affiliate Friendly Policies on the Merchant Best Practices forum. I did. The fifth point is:
    • Keep your program clean. Don't work with parasites, cookie stuffers, or coupon scrapers, any other bad players.
    I'm adding a link back to this thread, too.

    I think sometimes merchants think they're being "affiliate friendly" when they let these types of things slide, but it's really just the opposite. It has a negative impact on your legitimate affiliates and on your ability to recruit new affiliates.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  10. #10
    The Seal of Aproval rematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19th, 2006
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    4,140
    Years ago I used to teach a sales training class and one of he things I always emphasized was that once the prospect shows a buying signal SHUT UP. Merchants that show a coupon box at checkout are doing exactly the opposite.

    In most cases the only thing the merchant is accomplishing by this is:

    They just lost money by offering a discount that the customer didn't need in order to make their buying decision.

    and

    They negate the commission of an affiliate that built enough value in the customers mind to get them to the merchant site in the first place.

    or

    They just lost money by offering a discount that the customer didn't need in order to make their buying decision and paid a commission when the customer found them through organic search results.

    In the B&M world you very seldom see merchants with coupons at the register. Why? because it would be stupid to offer a discount for something that's already in the customers cart.

    This problem has been created bu merchants that don't know any better and exploited by affiliates that don't mind bending or breaking the rules. The only way for this issue to go away is for merchants to wise up.

    -rematt
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon

  11. #11
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Exclamation
    Quote Originally Posted by rematt
    Years ago I used to teach a sales training class and one of he things I always emphasized was that once the prospect shows a buying signal SHUT UP. Merchants that show a coupon box at checkout are doing exactly the opposite.

    In most cases the only thing the merchant is accomplishing by this is:

    They just lost money by offering a discount that the customer didn't need in order to make their buying decision.

    and

    They negate the commission of an affiliate that built enough value in the customers mind to get them to the merchant site in the first place.

    or

    They just lost money by offering a discount that the customer didn't need in order to make their buying decision and paid a commission when the customer found them through organic search results.

    In the B&M world you very seldom see merchants with coupons at the register. Why? because it would be stupid to offer a discount for something that's already in the customers cart.

    This problem has been created bu merchants that don't know any better and exploited by affiliates that don't mind bending or breaking the rules. The only way for this issue to go away is for merchants to wise up.

    -rematt
    Very wise post that should be a wake-up call to the real merchant management.... not their Adwhore enabling affiliate management group. The feeble minded crutch mentality prays management won't notice the percentage of ALL sales getting burdened with profit killing incentives. This includes incentive poaching on all traffic including in-house run traffic building campaigns. For the BHO poachers we call it the double dipping factor benefiting the networks skim fee and the AM's bonus plan. What do we call it when the Trademark/Brand + incentive search, triggered by the "place coupon code here" box, is boldly shown to 100% of the merchants shoppers leading to commission exposure on all traffic sources???

    Coupons get attached to non-commissionable actions at a high frequency, just like BHO's force cookies on type-in traffic, bookmarks and merchant e-mails. In all cases the hardworking domain bound merchant showcase creators have to pray their originating traffic efforts don't get whacked at the point of sale by the incentive interlopers.

    Merchants have options to double the commissions of showcase affiliate traffic originators, regardless of the current state where they've been painted into a corner by incentive affiliates.... and still make more profit per sale. We're talking new customer acquisition that has a lifetime hidden value too. Honest Affiliates adapting to my program can asked for, and get, higher commission rates. Link and Page Rank pops for their own natural SERP listings and help their merchant partner reduced the incentive based competition off the first SERP pages. Total fixed cost to merchant would be $20-30/month. How much are you currently paying in the way of commissions + coupon costs for normally non-commisionable sales?
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  12. #12
    ShareASale President/CEO and ABW Veteran Brian - ShareASale's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    3,657
    All,

    The action of clicking on the text to "clip" or to "cut and paste" is causing the OnClick event to launch.

    I don't think it is a network place to instruct an affiliate not to use an OnClick event for a link/image/etc... The Javascript OnClick event is a legitmate way to generate a click action... it is, afterall... on a click, by definition. It brings into question the intent of the user as well as "Why was the user attempting to Copy&Paste the code" etc... In my opinion these types of issues would need industry consensus as to what was allowed and what was discouraged, etc...

    I think it is very important... and I will bold this. I think it is very important that before anyone posts things here (including affiliate URLs) or emails individual merchants about the problem, that they really research what is going on as well as the implications of any accusation. I've seen many times where one person will accuse another of wrongdoing, and everyone else (including sometimes the merchant) will assume guilt initially. Merchants and OPMs will drop affiliates without even looking at the behaviour, etc...


    Both actions that Mark indicates above are caused by a user clicking. If you all would like to debate "types" of clicks I am more than willing to debate it and come up with an industry-wide definition of all kinds of different clicks and whether they should be allowed within programs, etc... I certainly recognize that some clicks are different than other clicks and would be open to the debate, but I would caution against just lumping everyone in on the term "Cookie Stuffer" because by doing so it passes that assumption on to the Merchant, other affiliates, etc...
    Thanks,

    Brian Littleton
    President/CEO - ShareASale.com, Inc.

  13. #13
    Affiliate Manager Alan Hamilton's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 13th, 2006
    Location
    Colorado / Florida
    Posts
    4,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian - ShareASale
    All,

    The action of clicking on the text to "clip" or to "cut and paste" is causing the OnClick event to launch.

    I don't think it is a network place to instruct an affiliate not to use an OnClick event for a link/image/etc... The Javascript OnClick event is a legitmate way to generate a click action... it is, afterall... on a click, by definition. It brings into question the intent of the user as well as "Why was the user attempting to Copy&Paste the code" etc... In my opinion these types of issues would need industry consensus as to what was allowed and what was discouraged, etc...

    I think it is very important... and I will bold this. I think it is very important that before anyone posts things here (including affiliate URLs) or emails individual merchants about the problem, that they really research what is going on as well as the implications of any accusation. I've seen many times where one person will accuse another of wrongdoing, and everyone else (including sometimes the merchant) will assume guilt initially. Merchants and OPMs will drop affiliates without even looking at the behaviour, etc...


    Both actions that Mark indicates above are caused by a user clicking. If you all would like to debate "types" of clicks I am more than willing to debate it and come up with an industry-wide definition of all kinds of different clicks and whether they should be allowed within programs, etc... I certainly recognize that some clicks are different than other clicks and would be open to the debate, but I would caution against just lumping everyone in on the term "Cookie Stuffer" because by doing so it passes that assumption on to the Merchant, other affiliates, etc...
    Well said Brian. Immediate reaction - often "over" reaction comes easy in a forum. Taking a closer look is wise advise. Thank you for the clarification.
    Join the Spicy Aprons Affiliate program on ShareASale Visit us on Facebook www.facebook.com/spicyaprons Follow us on Twitter @Spicyaprons

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador Sam Bay's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,603
    I don't think what Coupon**** doing is cookie stuffing.

    In this case, there is a deliberate action, taken by the user, that results in a pop up to the merchant's site. And it seems like pretty sophisticated and clever system, too, as it pops up the merchant's site, only when there is a click or copy/paste action on the coupon code itself. There is no automatic pop-up to the merchant's site that sets a cookie for 'every visitor'.

    So I would be ok with networks and merchants allowing this type of cookie setting as it is a legitimate way for coupon affiliates to prevent someone coming in and just copying the code without clicking on the links. (As long as non-coupon affiliates are also allowed to employ same tactics.)
    Last edited by loxly; September 6th, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason: per Brians post, affiliate site shouldn't be identified

  15. #15
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Thanks for following up, Brian -- but I must strongly disagree with your conclusion on this particular situation. Your applicable rule is this (within the ShareASale terms of use):

    > "NOT ALLOWED: Any display of a merchant window that isn't the result of a direct click by the end-user." <

    and

    > "As an Affiliate, You may not artificially inflate traffic counts to Merchant site(s) using any device, program, robot or other means, including but not limited to JavaScript pop-up windows and redirects." <

    I can't find any definition for a "direct click" but I can only assume that it means "something other" than a mere "click."

    As I understand it, your position is that when a user selects TEXT on a page, this can constitute a "direct click" for purposes of ShareASale's terms. In other words, a user's action to attempt to select a piece of text, where there is no reasonable way for the user to realize that doing so will trigger a redirect, is a "direct click" justifying a complete redirect of the visitor to a merchant web site.

    I used the term "script" to refer to what is happening, but technically it is just a snippet of code that makes use of the "onclick" event within a DIV text block.

    But what is happening, and why is the affiliate using the "onclick" trick instead of a hyperlink?

    Within the "coupon-code block" on this site, there are three separate lines:

    > Redeem Coupon
    > Code: SAVE10
    > Pop-Up Summary

    Of these three lines, only the first and third are hyperlinks.
    • Only the first line has the expected outcome: the user is redirected to the merchant's web site (entirely reasonable) .
    • The second line is NOT a hyperlink, but is plain text blocked with a DIV tag that triggers an "onclick" event if someone clicks within that text block. The same effect could have been achieved by making the second line a hyperlink, with style tags to omit underlining and coloration; however, the key difference is that a user can recognize a hyperlink because the cursor changes on a mouseover. In this case, the affiliate has chosen to use a "stealth" method to implement the link, and the ONLY reason is to "trick" the visitor into clicking-through to the merchant's web site when the user has clearly not given any signal of any intent or desire to do so
    • The third-line hyperlink works differently: as the user would expect, a new "pop-up" window opens, displaying a summary of information about the coupon; but unexpectedly, the main browser window is redirected to the merchant site, without a user request.


    If a consumer absolutely does NOT want to trigger a click to the merchant's site, the obvious technique would be to "cut" the TEXT coupon code (e.g. "SAVE10") -- but the publisher here expressly contradicts that intention by opening of the merchant site.

    Please note: Rematt and ecomcity properly note that the primary fault here does not lie with the coupon affiliate, but with the merchant for embedding a coupon prompt that we all realize is going to cause customers to exit the site looking for a coupon. As an affiliate, it is that prompt, combined with the existence of "coupon-site trickery," that persuaded me to abandon any relationship with this merchant.

    My interpretation of ShareASale's "terms of use" is that they prohibit the practice used here. Clearly, ShareASale's management disagrees with my interpretation, and Brian has now defined this as an "acceptable practice." I stand corrected -- and will be looking at my future business relationships accordingly.

    Finally, let me be clear: I consider the practices in both "line 2" and "line 3" to be "cookie-stuffing." While I can see some "room for debate" regarding the "Line 3" events, I absolutely cannot agree that the action for "Line 2" constitutes a "direct click" (indeed, it's really not a click at all, but the word "direct" creates a heightened standard that is certainly not met, in my opinion). I hope that others will look carefully at the "three lines" above and share their opinion about whether the actions that occur for lines 2 or 3 constitute "cookie-stuffing" or not.

    Under ShareASale's interpretation of the word "direct click," it seems to me that ANY click (including an "onexit" action, or a click on the "back" browser button) would be enough to meet the "standard" allowing the launch of the merchant's site in either the main window or a pop-up window. (I thought that at one time, there was also an express prohibition of "pop-unders" on the SAS web site, but now I can't find that language.)
    Last edited by markwelch; September 4th, 2007 at 02:39 PM.

  16. #16
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    SamBay wrote: > "In this case, there is a deliberate action, taken by the user, that results in a pop up to the merchant's site." <

    Sam, I disagree -- in the "second line," attempting to simply "cut" the text from the "second line" does not create any expectation that the merchant's site would be loaded in a pop-up -- and there is no pop-up in that event: what's happening is an unexpected redirect of the main browser window, not a pop-up. The "third line" does involve an "expectation of a pop-up," but again does not create any expectation that the main browser window would be redirected to the merchant's site.

    SamBay also wrote: > "There is no automatic pop-up to the merchant's site that sets a cookie for 'every visitor'." <

    Correct, but not a very high standard. If an affiliate created a script that "set a cookie" for every 10th visitor, would that be less troublesome? If the affiliate used "mouseover" as the trigger? What about an "exit click" such as clicking on the "back" button? What if the affiliate set things up so that ANY click on ANY link on the page, or on any text or white space on the page, triggered the redirect?

    If the practices here are "acceptable" to both ShareASale and the merchants, then they are acceptable, and I can't force others to adopt my views (though it will certainly affect my decisions in building future business relationships). However, whether or not this practice is "acceptable" to anyone, I still consider it to be "cookie-stuffing."
    Last edited by markwelch; September 4th, 2007 at 02:45 PM.

  17. #17
    The Seal of Aproval rematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19th, 2006
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    4,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Bay
    I don't think what ****** doing is cookie stuffing.

    In this case, there is a deliberate action, taken by the user, that results in a pop up to the merchant's site. And it seems like pretty sophisticated and clever system, too, as it pops up the merchant's site, only when there is a click or copy/paste action on the coupon code itself. There is no automatic pop-up to the merchant's site that sets a cookie for 'every visitor'.
    Without reopening the whole debate on what is or isn't "cookie stuffing" I'd like to make a couple of observations. While I'll agree that the technique used is "clever" I don't think that when a user makes an attempt to copy/paste the code a new window opening is what they expected or intended.

    Just suppose for a moment that I devised a method that prevented all of my cookies from being overwritten. That would certainly be "clever" and as far as I know it doesn't break the rules of any merchant or network, however I don't think most here would see that as a legitimate way of keeping my traffic from being credited to someone else.

    I don't really think that coupon sites are the problem. They have the right to protect their hard work as much as any other affiliate as long as they aren't misleading the user, merchant or network. The problem lies with merchants that put a gaping hole in the sales process often to their own detriment while at the same time causing an awful lot of derisiveness among different affiliates models.

    -rematt
    Last edited by loxly; September 6th, 2007 at 12:53 AM. Reason: per Brians post, affiliate site shouldn't be identified
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    Hmm. It is initiated by a user action which is different from some other cases brought up. Coupon sites do get a lot of people just copying and pasting codes. I've tried to get merchants to get coupon links which would handle the problem. So this does need to be discussed more. Copying a code does show intent that the shopper wants to use the code. If it was a text link, clicking on the link would show intent and the coupon site would get credit. So I don't see much difference.

  19. #19
    The Seal of Aproval rematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19th, 2006
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    4,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust
    Copying a code does show intent that the shopper wants to use the code. If it was a text link, clicking on the link would show intent and the coupon site would get credit. So I don't see much difference.
    Using a standard hyperlink or using Copysafe or another means to prevent the user from simply copying the code forcing them to either click the link or write the code down would have been a more straightforward approach.

    Using technology to "trick" the user into performing an action is not the way to go.

    -rematt
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    As far as forcing a user to write it down, that's not good user experience. It's easier to copy and paste.

    When you say using standard hyperlink, what do you mean exactly?

    Click here to get 10% off your order using code: XXX type of thing?

  21. #21
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Trust, I think the distinction here is between the concept of a "user action" and "the user's expectation." While I certainly think that my interpretation of the "user action" should prohibit this practice, I don't think that the "user action" should be the standard at all, but instead the "user's expectation" should set the standard. In any event, I'll expound on the "user action" issue.

    I had interpreted the term "direct click" in the SAS terms of use to mean "a click in which the user would reasonably expect that the result would be to view the merchant site." Others have suggested that it means "any mouse-click that occurs in or near information about the merchant." I don't know if anyone thinks that "direct click" means "any click" but even then, I certainly would exclude a "cut" or "clip" attempt from the definition of a "click."

    Trust, given your last post, does it matter that the "onclick" trigger here appears to actually PREVENT the user from clipping the coupon text, and therefore if the hyperlink does't contain embedded coupon data, the consumer will NOT receive the benefit of the coupon?

  22. #22
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "Does it matter that the "onclick" trigger here actually PREVENTS the user from clipping the coupon text, and therefore if the hyperlink does't contain embedded coupon data, the consumer will NOT receive the benefit of the coupon?"

    Not sure if I'm reading that right. I just tried it and the merchant site opened and I was able to copy the code, the text. The new window pops up (merchant) so you have to go back to the page but it's doable.

  23. #23
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Sorry, Trust, you're right -- since it's opening a new window instead of redirecting the main browser window, it doesn't prevent me from cutting the code. Obviously, my mind was churning through lots of variations in an attempt to figure out what folks think is "OK" and what's not.

    But would it make a difference to you if someone did prevent the "clip" operation, and instead redirected the current browser window? I think it would be OK under the standard articulated here by SAS (although it would certainly be a poor business practice since this would probably cause the conversion rate to plummet).

  24. #24
    The Seal of Aproval rematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 19th, 2006
    Location
    The Windy City
    Posts
    4,140
    This will be an ongoing debate until merchants find a better way of offering coupons. Customers like deals and there's no reason that merchants shouldn't offer them. In a perfect world everyone would earn what they deserve (not necessarily what they think they deserve) based on whether they actually influenced the sale or not. But today that isn't a reality.

    -rematt
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." - Richard Nixon

  25. #25
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Nunya, Business
    Posts
    23,684
    "But would it make a difference to you if someone did prevent the "clip" operation, and instead redirected the current browser window?"

    Why would a coupon site prevent the copying of a coupon code? That wouldn't make any sense, they want their visitors to be able to use them. They're valid codes and if they're not a link but in code form, they have to be able to copy them or write them down to use them. There's no benefit to a coupon site doing that, in fact it would hurt them if they prevented the copying (clip) of the code.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cookie stuffing?
    By Kimberly in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2006, 08:59 AM
  2. Is this cookie stuffing???
    By Billy Kay in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 29th, 2004, 11:09 AM

Posting Permissions

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