1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Default Detroit Adopts New Policy

    http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com.../newsid/138892

    Now we can stop picking on LA when he says the same thing.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com.../newsid/138892

    Now we can stop picking on LA when he says the same thing.
    Be 100% honest when you answer this:

    Did you read the article before you came to his indefensible, or did you just read a headline?
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    The difference here is that LA will let any building burn to the ground if there isn't a sign out front that says "Hey I'm inside and need help". In detroit, they're talking only about vacant buildings, as in, nobody lives there and its a dump.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  4. #4
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnVBFD View Post
    Be 100% honest when you answer this:

    Did you read the article before you came to his indefensible, or did you just read a headline?

    My guess is that a headline was just read and thought cool. The difference being that the policy is written to give the actual fireground IC the ability to decide on the course of attack.

    Not that we are in any way in a similar situation as Detroit, we do however, face a great many fires in vacant/abandoned/board ups. This topic has been discussed at length here, as well.
    Given that the construction in Detroit is similar to here, along with the fact that a great number of their fires are in buildings that have seen multiple fires, it is really no surprise that Detroit would go to a policy as such. I guarantee you though, that they will do their best to make sure that there are no trapped squatters, or kids, or arsonists in those buildings deemed abandoned. Fires don't just happen on their own. I would also guarantee that this policy does not make a blanket "don't go into any vacants" statement, either. I guarantee it. In this area, as in many others we do actually take an oath to preserve life and property, with the emphasis on life.

    From my humble perspective, the difference here is that the DFD officers will be the ones making the determination on whether interior attacks/searches will take place. This is different from a blanket, there is no way there is anyone in any vacant building, so we enter none.
    They are going to rely on their first due companies who know the area and are familiar with their first due issues.
    Last edited by Jasper 45; 06-19-2011 at 11:19 AM.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    The difference here is that LA will let any building burn to the ground if there isn't a sign out front that says "Hey I'm inside and need help". In detroit, they're talking only about vacant buildings, as in, nobody lives there and its a dump.
    You obviously haven't been reading my posts. Or maybe just not comprehending them.

    We do not operate in abandoned structures, which are defined as buildings that have not been maintained or are in a state of physical decay.

    We do operate in vacants, which are defined as buildings that are structurally stable and are currently maintained that are currently not occupied.

    Vacant residential structures are very easy to determine in this area.

    Big difference.

    As yes, it is my personal opinion that the criteria for operating in vacants, as we define them, should be very specific and narrow, and in most cases, we (in this area specifically) should not make entry as in our area the likelihood of occupancy is quite small. That is my personal opinion, however, when functioning as IC, I do apply that principal as my primary concern on the firground is the safety of my personal, and the fewer unnecessary exposures to fire they experience, the less likely they are to be injured or killed.

    Just wanted to clarify that abandoned v. vacant issue as once again some of you seem confused.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-19-2011 at 11:21 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Could we...please...maybe not start this thread AGAIN?

    Nothing is going to change. Nobody is going to change LA's mind, and LA isn't going to influence anyone to change their minds.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Good blog on Firefighternation on this topic.

    First allow me three disclaimers on this subject.
    1. I do not advocate the reckless abandon of safe, knowledgeable firefighting simply because a building is on fire and we must be inside in order to extinguish said fire.
    2. I do not advocate the overly cautious to a fault degree of safety at a building on fire, which completely and without allowance, states anyone and everyone inside said building is already dead or has no hope of survival.
    3. I strongly advocate the smart, knowledgeable fireground sizeup that when combined with education and experience recognizes and capitalizes on opportunities to work for the positive outcome of any persons who might be trapped inside while minimizing property loss, working in manner of reduced risk and supporting the general public expectation.

    Detroit's new fire commissioner Donald Austin has appeared on one the the local news stations promoting a plan to protect his firefighters. Unfortunately Austin's plan is high on presentation, low on substance and includes a loophole for both he and his firefighters.

    Click on image to play video


    "Why We Search"
    Glimpses of vacant, abandoned structure fire news.

    "Vacant Residential Building Fires", USFA

    WDIV states Austin's new plan is one that will not allow firefighters to go inside vacant buildings unless there are clear indications that someone is inside. "Just to assume that a vacant building always has a squatter or a homeless person in there is kind of a false assumption," Commissioner Austin stated this as well as describing his plan as a paradigm shift. Unfortunately his new plan has already failed by mention of this brief statement:

    "Austin said he'll be spreading the word to his chiefs to use caution, but ultimately the fire leader at the scene will have the final decision on whether to send firefighters into the building or not."

    A paradigm shift is basically a complete change in a belief or fundamental way in which things are done. For example, when you wake in the morning if the first thing you routinely do is shower, then a paradigm shift in your routine would now have you eating breakfast first. Unfortunately, we have misused 'paradigm shift' as well as wrongly defined it. Thomas Kuhn, a physicist and philosopher most closely associated with paradigm shift, originally held the opinion that paradigms are not defined in strict terms by beliefs or notions but are fluid and shifting, and are contrary to linear changes. Kuhn also believed that these changes are competitive and open to subjectivity.

    So what does this mean for Detroit?

    If Commissioner Austin's plan were truly a paradigm shift, then the plan would state "there is to be no interior firefighting in vacant, abandoned structures whatsoever."

    It is not because of the loophole, "- ultimately the fire leader at the scene will have the final decision on whether to send firefighters into the building or not." Allowing for total cards on the table honesty, is there anyone in the country who believes that starting today Detroit firefighters will not be going inside to fight a vacant building fire if the situation allows it? No, because such action is contrary to our nature and sub cultures and the plan is open to subjective interpretation.

    Every fire is different and presents a different sizeup. Delivering a plan that says "firefighters will only go into a burning building if there's a clear indication that someone is inside" and then allowing the incident commander (company officer, battalion chief) to determine if firefighters should go in is contrary to the plan. If a rescue of a squatter is made at a fire, then we say the plan is wrong. If a firefighter is injured or killed at a fire, we say the plan is right. It cannot be both fixed and fluid in order to succeed.

    There is only one way to keep firefighters safe from vacant and abandoned building fires and it is done by removing the structure. During the beginning of this year Detroit was on target for Mayor Bing's planned demolition of 10,000 homes before his term ends


    Really no difference on how they currently operate as even in their current operations, the commanders at the scene determine offensive v. defensive.

    In the long run, this new policy really doesn't change that.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    posted by LA
    We do not operate in abandoned structures, which are defined as buildings that have not been maintained or are in a state of physical decay.
    Yet, on post 32 of the "grievance filed, what say you thread" you came out with this gem...

    Originally Posted by LaFireEducator
    I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

    If the manpower is vaialble, and the building is partially collpased I would much rather have the FD doing it rather than a civilian. Paid or volunteer, I see no issue with this task.

    It can only result in positive PR.
    It must be hard to say two different things from both sides of your nmouth at the same time....
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    posted by LA

    Yet, on post 32 of the "grievance filed, what say you thread" you came out with this gem...



    It must be hard to say two different things from both sides of your nmouth at the same time....
    He just has to hate it when someone on here snaps it off in his azz......He probably smashes his head against the keyboard saying "DOH!" while he thinks of a backpedal post..... (that he thinks we wont see through)
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnVBFD View Post
    Be 100% honest when you answer this:

    Did you read the article before you came to his indefensible, or did you just read a headline?
    As a matter of fact, yes I did read it.

    And, as per usual, somebody took an LA quote completely out of context in an attempt to point out LA's "inconsistancy."

    Let's face it, if we weren't so busy trying to apply our own firefighting environment to everybody else's exposures, we'd be a lot further along.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,112

    Default

    As a matter of fact I am quite surprised that it has taken Detroit this long to make a policy like that. In fact I thought every department and every Incident Commander would have the ability to make the decision as to searching or not searching. I think they did this already but maybe not.

    It's true it doesn't really change anything. In the end the IC makes the call.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Nothing will change. The Detroit guys on the street will continue to do things their way. The Chiefs don't want to sit at a fire 3 hours, they wanna go in, put the fire out, and go home in an hour. The way it should be.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Of course he felt going in a collapsing water/snow damaged structure is somehow different to him. There is no scary flames or smelly smoke.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JohnVBFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Norfolk, Va
    Posts
    1,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    As a matter of fact, yes I did read it.
    You did read it but decided to post:

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Now we can stop picking on LA when he says the same thing.
    So the point was what?

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    And, as per usual, somebody took an LA quote completely out of context in an attempt to point out LA's "inconsistancy"
    You started a thread that was in "defense" of the indefensible, but are shocked that someone pointed out the usual hypocrisay of the Coward?

    So Detroit put pen to paper on what everyone here that I know of, with the exception of the Coward, has said: You make a judgement call based upon the fire/scene before you on what actions you do and do not take. However at SOME POINT, it is up to the Fire Department to determine if the structure was occupied or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Let's face it, if we weren't so busy trying to apply our own firefighting environment to everybody else's exposures, we'd be a lot further along.
    A firefighting environment is the same anywhere in the basics. Fire growth and spread doesn't change. Does the type of structures change, yes. Do our responsibilities as the fire department? NO.
    Co 11
    Virginia Beach FD

    Amateurs practice until they get it right; professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong. Which one are you?

    'The fire went out and nobody got hurt' is a poor excuse for a fireground critique.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    I think it remains to be seen as to whether or not any actual change takes place, however I do see where this new policy could be a change for the department.

    Before this new policy, I assume that the decision to enter or not would be made based on the normal criteria of perceived stability of the structure, level of fire involvement and life safety issues.

    After this new policy, at least the way I could see it to be interpreted, the initial determination would be about occupancy. Are there "clear indications that someone is inside"? If the answer is "yes", then the IC would move on to assessing the structural stability and fire involvement and determine if interior operations are appropriate. If the answer is "no", then no other determination needs to be made regarding the viability of interior operations since they won't be initiated regardless of these other factors.

    So, I think that the "IC discretion" that the Commissioner was referring to could be the ability of the IC to make the determination of whether or not "clear indications that someone is inside" exist and then make the other determinations for interior operations if they do exist.

    I'm sure they have conducted interior operations in many vacant/abandoned buildings on fire in which there was not a clear indication of people being entrapped. Other conditions may have reasonable allowed for this, but if the new policy is strictly followed, then I could see where they would be entering fewer vacant/abandoned buildings that are on fire than they have prior to the new policy.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    posted by LA

    Yet, on post 32 of the "grievance filed, what say you thread" you came out with this gem...



    It must be hard to say two different things from both sides of your nmouth at the same time....
    No, it's really not.

    Situation 1 - The Fire

    We have a building on fire which is a fluid, dynamic event with the possibility of rapid changes in structural stability due to fire where the IC has likely only minutes to do an incomplete survey of the building limited by smoke, heat, fire, distractions such as radio traffic and lack of light.

    Based on that, he has only minutes, if that to determine a course of action in a building where future fire events are not predicatable.

    Situation 2 - The Collapsed Building (.. which nobody has seen a picture of, by the way)

    A building which is not on fire, and has been partially collapsed for several months, meaning it's a very static situation, where the IC has an unlimited period of time to do a complete interior and exterior survey without being hampered by smoke, heat, distractions such as radio traffic, lack of light and firefighting equipment hampering his survey.

    Based on this he has unlimited time to designate unsafe areas and/or provide shoring to support the structure if reasonable.

    Sorry, but those are two very different situations.

    And just not to muddy the waters with facts, but if you look back at that post discussing the grievance, I clearly stated several times that the task should only be done if it could be done with a minimum of risk. However, we'll just forget that disclaimer and go with "he said he would do it ...".

    We have but we have because of what we do when we are dealing with the public in a non-emergency situation. And so do many others VFDs everyday.

    Of course he felt going in a collapsing water/snow damaged structure is somehow different to him. There is no scary flames or smelly smoke.

    The variables are time, which is unlimited in the collapse situation as the IC has unlimited time to do a detailed survey of the situation and the fact that the collapse is a static event v. the fluid, dynamic event of a fire.

    The other fact is that in our area fighting a fire in an abandoned structure has no measurable gain as the life safety risk is essentially non-existent based on past events.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-19-2011 at 06:11 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68
    Now we can stop picking on LA when he says the same thing.
    So the point was what?
    Poor timing. Should have waited until the reaction of the masses was clear.

    Still waiting for the "search every building every time" crew to chime in.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Poor timing. Should have waited until the reaction of the masses was clear.

    Still waiting for the "search every building every time" crew to chime in.
    Ummn, I THINK we just DID. We search EVERY building here as long as it can be done without undue hazardous exposure to the crew. A few you aren't getting into and that is just the way it is. Experienced IC's are usually pretty good at making GO/NO go determinations. Face it,in the parrish it would appear that they operate in a manner that is quite different that wht we do in the Upper Northeast. To a degree that would be UNACCEPTABLE here. T.C.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    Poor timing. Should have waited until the reaction of the masses was clear.

    Still waiting for the "search every building every time" crew to chime in.
    No one has ever advocated senseless/suicidal searches. The argument is assuming that "we've never had a problem with homelessness, so we'll never worry about it" is just as moronic as advocating a search in all buildings. You should probably pay attention before a feeble attempt at stirring the pot.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    The point of many safety rules is to have a case to deny your benefits if you violate them.
    Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    No one has ever advocated senseless/suicidal searches. The argument is assuming that "we've never had a problem with homelessness, so we'll never worry about it" is just as moronic as advocating a search in all buildings. You should probably pay attention before a feeble attempt at stirring the pot.
    So policies should never be based on past experiences and outcomes?

    I'd love to see you do risk analysis if you don't.

    How do you justify the loss of a firefighter to the wife/husband and kids if he/she is killed while operating in an abandoned structure with no direct witness information indicating occupancy in an area with absolutely no history of occupancy?

    Can you honestly look at the widow in the face and tell her that her husband died in the highest tradition of the fire service?

    I can't.

    Again, give me a reason to enter an abandoned structure and I will. Don''t give me a reason and I'll stand outside and watch it burn let the pile of trash it is.

    As far as Detroit, it sounds like nothing has changed. A policy forbidding entry except in situations where you have direct witness information indicating occupancy would be a paradigm shift.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So policies should never be based on past experiences and outcomes?

    I'd love to see you do risk analysis if you don't.

    How do you justify the loss of a firefighter to the wife/husband and kids if he/she is killed while operating in an abandoned structure with no direct witness information indicating occupancy in an area with absolutely no history of occupancy?

    Can you honestly look at the widow in the face and tell her that her husband died in the highest tradition of the fire service?

    I can't.

    Again, give me a reason to enter an abandoned structure and I will. Don''t give me a reason and I'll stand outside and watch it burn let the pile of trash it is.

    As far as Detroit, it sounds like nothing has changed. A policy forbidding entry except in situations where you have direct witness information indicating occupancy would be a paradigm shift.
    The same way as if there were victims inside, the same as after 30 years of service and he succumbed to cancer, and the same way as if they passed attempting to pull a child out:

    He was a brother regardless if I ever met him or not and he will missed and always remembered for his sacrifice. No amount of arrogance from the Monday morning qb's will cheapen his life nor his death. It is unfortunate for any of our brothers to die and regardless of what you think, they should not have to worry about another "brother" speaking the way you do.


    What are you going to tell the widow of a brother who dies from heart failure? That if you weren't being paid to play online all day, they could have afforded screening?
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajm611 View Post
    The same way as if there were victims inside, the same as after 30 years of service and he succumbed to cancer, and the same way as if they passed attempting to pull a child out:

    He was a brother regardless if I ever met him or not and he will missed and always remembered for his sacrifice. No amount of arrogance from the Monday morning qb's will cheapen his life nor his death. It is unfortunate for any of our brothers to die and regardless of what you think, they should not have to worry about another "brother" speaking the way you do.


    What are you going to tell the widow of a brother who dies from heart failure? That if you weren't being paid to play online all day, they could have afforded screening?
    We take risks when risks are warranted and justified by by a real life safety threat.

    A abandoned building in a area that has never had a victim in such is not a real real life threat, but merely a potential life threat, and the risk posed by a search can only be justified by credible information of a victim, not merely the potential of a victim.

    I could not look into the wife and children of a brother killed searching an abandoned building simply based on "the potential". Our firefighters deserve more respect than be put into that situation without credible reports of a victim.

    A bother dying while searching an abandoned building without credible victim information in this area would be nothing more than a senseless waste and could not be justified. Sacrifice without the a strong potential of significant gain is nothing but an unjustifiable waste.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tajm611's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We take risks when risks are warranted and justified by by a real life safety threat.

    A abandoned building in a area that has never had a victim in such is not a real real life threat, but merely a potential life threat, and the risk posed by a search can only be justified by credible information of a victim, not merely the potential of a victim.

    I could not look into the wife and children of a brother killed searching an abandoned building simply based on "the potential". Our firefighters deserve more respect than be put into that situation without credible reports of a victim.

    A bother dying while searching an abandoned building without credible victim information in this area would be nothing more than a senseless waste and could not be justified. Sacrifice without the a strong potential of significant gain is nothing but an unjustifiable waste.

    Whatever you say to help you sleep at night, just don't pass off your cowardice to the young guys.
    ‎"I was always taught..." Four words impacting fire service education in the most negative of ways. -Bill Carey

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny46 View Post
    The point of many safety rules is to have a case to deny your benefits if you violate them.
    I'm certainly leaning this way on this policy. I see it as placing the pre-tied noose around the street chief's necks. Short of an all out "you will" or you won't" policy without variables (almost unheard of), it's always the IC's decision how to deploy personnel to be effective and still keep them safe.

    How about giving DFD something they ca really use to reduce the possibility of injury and deaths at vacants, like much better staffing?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ordered to remove speed limits from policy
    By Chief_Roy in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 01:48 PM
  2. 'Burn' Story about Detroit
    By MemphisE34a in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 03:26 AM
  3. Detroit Fire Department
    By detroitfire1552 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 12:24 PM
  4. Detroit Captain scapegoat for City's cuts
    By gunnyv in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-03-2006, 11:03 AM
  5. Firefighter Who Quit Recalls His First Callout
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 03-15-2005, 09:45 PM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register