Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Hey Tom, About That Server
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
It may not necessarily be 'underhanded'. But, the evidentiary value of the image, and items brought off that image, is severely reduced. The DNC, for whatever reason, decided not to directly involve the FBI at the get-go. Kind of a self-fk in terms of ensuring the evidentiary power of the results.
07-17-2018 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bobdizole Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,468
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 337
I Root For: MT
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-17-2018 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It may not necessarily be 'underhanded'. But, the evidentiary value of the image, and items brought off that image, is severely reduced. The DNC, for whatever reason, decided not to directly involve the FBI at the get-go. Kind of a self-fk in terms of ensuring the evidentiary power of the results.

And based off of the comments I've read by the DNC IT team and my own experience I don't blame them for not granting them access to their systems. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight to know this was a had decision, but the FBI doesn't care about mitigating the leak. They want to keep the breach alive so they can further investigate the attack. The DNC team a) had to contain the loss of data because we don't know what they didn't get and it could have been worse(hard to imagine) than what was leaked. B) and this is the area I can relate to, they had to get their systems back up and running because they were in the middle of a presidential campaign. For an organization that size you can't just flip a switch and give the FBI control of.your infrastructure and magically switch all of your users to a new system.

It's always a struggle but the 3 objectives after a breach in order are containment, minimal disruption of operations, and discovering the source. I have a feeling if the HRC camp wasn't so certain in their victory they would have do more about the 3rd step than #2
07-17-2018 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
I fault the decision because the major breach of a major political party *is* a big fing deal. Something like that brought down a US President, iirc. This really isnt hindsight either.

They knew from the onset how deep the breach was and how massive. No way in fing hell it was *not* felony related at the Federal charge level for even the most dense minded of people.

Add on the fact that the 'deep breach' *wasnt* at some place like Amy's Ice Cream or Popeye's Fried Chicken, but deep in the heart of 1/2 of the major political parties. You can't get much more major league than that in terms of private organizations......

I cant give them the 'I cant fault them in hindsight'. The breach was readily perceived to be (correctly) deep and pervasive -- Federal criminal level. The deep and pervasive breach was at one of the most important private (or non-governmental) organizations.

It is somewhat criminal that they *didnt* involve the Feebs at the first light of dawn with those factors. But, goody for them, they self-helped (self-screwed) any efforts at later justice because of that.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2018 08:59 PM by tanqtonic.)
07-17-2018 08:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
450bench Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 30,771
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 2301
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Memphis
Post: #44
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-17-2018 08:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I fault the decision because the major breach of a major political party *is* a big fing deal. Something like that brought down a US President, iirc. This really isnt hindsight either.

They knew from the onset how deep the breach was and how massive. No way in fing hell it was *not* felony related at the Federal charge level for even the most dense minded of people.

Add on the fact that the 'deep breach' *wasnt* at some place like Amy's Ice Cream or Popeye's Fried Chicken, but deep in the heart of 1/2 of the major political parties. You can't get much more major league than that in terms of private organizations......

I cant give them the 'I cant fault them in hindsight'. The breach was readily perceived to be (correctly) deep and pervasive -- Federal criminal level. The deep and pervasive breach was at one of the most important private (or non-governmental) organizations.

It is somewhat criminal that they *didnt* involve the Feebs at the first light of dawn with those factors. But, goody for them, they self-helped (self-screwed) any efforts at later justice because of that.

Good points.
07-17-2018 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #45
Hey Tom, About That Server
I'll drop this here[Image: e47d008b6ed3ac687ee22e40b92e5c8b.jpg]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
07-17-2018 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bobdizole Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,468
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 337
I Root For: MT
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-17-2018 08:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I fault the decision because the major breach of a major political party *is* a big fing deal. Something like that brought down a US President, iirc. This really isnt hindsight either.

They knew from the onset how deep the breach was and how massive. No way in fing hell it was *not* felony related at the Federal charge level for even the most dense minded of people.

Add on the fact that the 'deep breach' *wasnt* at some place like Amy's Ice Cream or Popeye's Fried Chicken, but deep in the heart of 1/2 of the major political parties. You can't get much more major league than that in terms of private organizations......

I cant give them the 'I cant fault them in hindsight'. The breach was readily perceived to be (correctly) deep and pervasive -- Federal criminal level. The deep and pervasive breach was at one of the most important private (or non-governmental) organizations.

It is somewhat criminal that they *didnt* involve the Feebs at the first light of dawn with those factors. But, goody for them, they self-helped (self-screwed) any efforts at later justice because of that.

Got it. You completely discredit that they needed to get their operations back up and running as quickly as possible. And you don't know that they didn't involve the Feebs at the first inkling of an attack. As major league as the DNC is, they are still a private organization and they still have to follow protocols followed by every other private organization. How would we feel as Americans feel if the DNC used the government as their private investigators? I know how the majority of this board would feel.

Side note, you know how many people eat at Popeyes every day? Alot more than people suffering under DJT's presidency and their bank accounts getting emptied is a big f'n deal. I don't know about Amy's ice cream but I don't think you should **** on Amy and her frozen treats.
07-17-2018 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
Number one, the democtats' first mistake was setting up shoddy security controls that allowed their systems to be hacked in the first place. A cavalier attitude toward information security has been a long time characteristic of the Clinton organization, from Sandy Berger stuffing classified materials into his socks in order to abscond with them, to Hillary's server, to this. They skated out on the first two, but this one bit them in the butt. It is documented that "the Russians" attempted to hack republicans as well, but apparently were able to penetrate only archived files, not any active data or operations.

Number two, when the breach occurred, the democrats' decision makers had to make a judgement call. They had an ongoing operation to maintain, as Bobdizole points out, and that conflicted with the need to preserve evidence for criminal prosecution, as Tanq points out. Those same two conflicting goals arise every time there is a breach of this nature. Bob correctly states the three goals in those situations--containment, minimal disruption, discovery of source, in that order. And I think he states the correct opinion that had democrats not been so smugly certain of their chances for victory, they might have made a different call on handling the breach. But they didn't. Avoiding that dilemma is not the main reason for installing sufficient controls over data security, but it is one reason.

It was their smug lack of concern for proper information security that landed them in this pickle. Every time anyone mentions Hillary's server, the response is always something to the effect of that's not the subject, so don't go there because it is irrelevant. But it is relevant, because it is the same thing. When you know "the Russians"--and, God knows, everybody else, maybe even, worst of worst, the real enemy, the republicans--are trying to break into your systems, then you install strong controls (they exist) and take maximum care to ensure nobody breaks in. In the Clinton campaign and the democrats, we have people who have historically smugly ignored proper information security protocols. This time it bit them in the butt. Bigly. I think there is a valid question whether it poses an unacceptable threat to America to have people in power whose history suggests that they would play fast and loose with secrets vital to national security.

What they've created is a situation where the primary piece of evidence in any criminal prosecution is going to be badly tainted at best, and inadmissible at worst. Right now, the best chance of succeeding with any criminal proceeding is to find some Russian conspirator who wants to "live in Montana and marry a round American woman and raise rabbits," and is willing to turn, admit facts that cannot be proved otherwise, and serve some time in order to obtain that goal. I doubt that Vasili Borodin exists, very possibly because this whole narrative never happened in the first place, but that's what Mueller appears to be fishing for with his indictments.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018 07:44 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-18-2018 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #48
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-17-2018 08:30 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(07-17-2018 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It may not necessarily be 'underhanded'. But, the evidentiary value of the image, and items brought off that image, is severely reduced. The DNC, for whatever reason, decided not to directly involve the FBI at the get-go. Kind of a self-fk in terms of ensuring the evidentiary power of the results.

And based off of the comments I've read by the DNC IT team and my own experience I don't blame them for not granting them access to their systems. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight to know this was a had decision, but the FBI doesn't care about mitigating the leak. They want to keep the breach alive so they can further investigate the attack. The DNC team a) had to contain the loss of data because we don't know what they didn't get and it could have been worse(hard to imagine) than what was leaked. B) and this is the area I can relate to, they had to get their systems back up and running because they were in the middle of a presidential campaign. For an organization that size you can't just flip a switch and give the FBI control of.your infrastructure and magically switch all of your users to a new system.

It's always a struggle but the 3 objectives after a breach in order are containment, minimal disruption of operations, and discovering the source. I have a feeling if the HRC camp wasn't so certain in their victory they would have do more about the 3rd step than #2

03-yes
07-18-2018 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-17-2018 09:14 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(07-17-2018 08:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I fault the decision because the major breach of a major political party *is* a big fing deal. Something like that brought down a US President, iirc. This really isnt hindsight either.

They knew from the onset how deep the breach was and how massive. No way in fing hell it was *not* felony related at the Federal charge level for even the most dense minded of people.

Add on the fact that the 'deep breach' *wasnt* at some place like Amy's Ice Cream or Popeye's Fried Chicken, but deep in the heart of 1/2 of the major political parties. You can't get much more major league than that in terms of private organizations......

I cant give them the 'I cant fault them in hindsight'. The breach was readily perceived to be (correctly) deep and pervasive -- Federal criminal level. The deep and pervasive breach was at one of the most important private (or non-governmental) organizations.

It is somewhat criminal that they *didnt* involve the Feebs at the first light of dawn with those factors. But, goody for them, they self-helped (self-screwed) any efforts at later justice because of that.

Got it. You completely discredit that they needed to get their operations back up and running as quickly as possible. And you don't know that they didn't involve the Feebs at the first inkling of an attack. As major league as the DNC is, they are still a private organization and they still have to follow protocols followed by every other private organization. How would we feel as Americans feel if the DNC used the government as their private investigators? I know how the majority of this board would feel.

Side note, you know how many people eat at Popeyes every day? Alot more than people suffering under DJT's presidency and their bank accounts getting emptied is a big f'n deal. I don't know about Amy's ice cream but I don't think you should **** on Amy and her frozen treats.

I actually love Amy's Ice Cream and Popeye's. Would chomp down on both every day if I could. 03-wink

But the level of importance of them being hacked in no way compares to the level of the DNC. For some weird ass reason I dont think Chad the ice cream barista at Amy's is involved in making decisions that could literally affect every person in the country.....

If the group that was targeted did have *that* level of discussion and level of import in terms of decision-making, you could bet your sweet ass I wouldnt mind the FBI being called in at the get-go. If it was the Boy Scouts.... meh....

In fact, if the group *has* that level of impact on the population, not only do I think it a damn good idea to call in the FBI, it might even be somewhat morally obligatory given that stature of impact in the United States and its populace.
07-18-2018 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 08:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-17-2018 09:14 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(07-17-2018 08:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I fault the decision because the major breach of a major political party *is* a big fing deal. Something like that brought down a US President, iirc. This really isnt hindsight either.
They knew from the onset how deep the breach was and how massive. No way in fing hell it was *not* felony related at the Federal charge level for even the most dense minded of people.
Add on the fact that the 'deep breach' *wasnt* at some place like Amy's Ice Cream or Popeye's Fried Chicken, but deep in the heart of 1/2 of the major political parties. You can't get much more major league than that in terms of private organizations......
I cant give them the 'I cant fault them in hindsight'. The breach was readily perceived to be (correctly) deep and pervasive -- Federal criminal level. The deep and pervasive breach was at one of the most important private (or non-governmental) organizations.
It is somewhat criminal that they *didnt* involve the Feebs at the first light of dawn with those factors. But, goody for them, they self-helped (self-screwed) any efforts at later justice because of that.
Got it. You completely discredit that they needed to get their operations back up and running as quickly as possible. And you don't know that they didn't involve the Feebs at the first inkling of an attack. As major league as the DNC is, they are still a private organization and they still have to follow protocols followed by every other private organization. How would we feel as Americans feel if the DNC used the government as their private investigators? I know how the majority of this board would feel.
Side note, you know how many people eat at Popeyes every day? Alot more than people suffering under DJT's presidency and their bank accounts getting emptied is a big f'n deal. I don't know about Amy's ice cream but I don't think you should **** on Amy and her frozen treats.
I actually love Amy's Ice Cream and Popeye's. Would chomp down on both every day if I could. 03-wink
But the level of importance of them being hacked in no way compares to the level of the DNC. For some weird ass reason I dont think Chad the ice cream barista at Amy's is involved in making decisions that could literally affect every person in the country.....
If the group that was targeted did have *that* level of discussion and level of import in terms of decision-making, you could bet your sweet ass I wouldnt mind the FBI being called in at the get-go. If it was the Boy Scouts.... meh....
In fact, if the group *has* that level of impact on the population, not only do I think it a damn good idea to call in the FBI, it might even be somewhat morally obligatory given that stature of impact in the United States and its populace.

And I would add that the importance of those decisions places a burden on those responsible to ensure that the systems and data do not get breached. That's has been my ongoing concern. I thought Bill Clinton was an excellent president, but information security has never been a priority with the Clinton organization. That was a big concern, particularly after Hillary's server incident, and this time it bit them in the butt.
07-18-2018 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
That’s what’s so dangerous with leaks and the continuing partisan slant of investigations. The very first thing I thought of his McConnell and Ryan getting their hands on DNC data. It really is terrible and I wish it happened to the RNC instead of the DNC. I can understand why the majority of the spin room isn’t upset about it because it helped them. But it’s not a way to govern. If Trump had any statesman in him he would have nominated Garland instead of a Kavanaugh. Democrats are legintemately an aggrieved party here. I just hope it shows up in November.
07-18-2018 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
For instance. This Butina that was arrested. House Democrats wanted her to be subpoenaed in the House investigation. Republican said no. How do you get somebody that actually benefitted from the scenario to fully investigate it. Thank God he fired Comey or we wouldn’t have Mueller. Thank God but even with that. No guarantees we get to the bottom of it.
07-18-2018 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #53
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
I want someone to explain to me why I should want someone who is as careless with information security as Podesta and the DNC were to be entrusted with our nation’s greatest secrets.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018 12:59 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-18-2018 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 30,241
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2432
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: In The Moment

Survivor Champion
Post: #54
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 09:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That’s what’s so dangerous with leaks and the continuing partisan slant of investigations. The very first thing I thought of his McConnell and Ryan getting their hands on DNC data. It really is terrible and I wish it happened to the RNC instead of the DNC. I can understand why the majority of the spin room isn’t upset about it because it helped them. But it’s not a way to govern. If Trump had any statesman in him he would have nominated Garland instead of a Kavanaugh. Democrats are legintemately an aggrieved party here. I just hope it shows up in November.

So again you wanted it to happen to your opponent because it showed how sh*tty the person you were pulling for was.
07-18-2018 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 30,241
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2432
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: In The Moment

Survivor Champion
Post: #55
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 09:57 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  For instance. This Butina that was arrested. House Democrats wanted her to be subpoenaed in the House investigation. Republican said no. How do you get somebody that actually benefitted from the scenario to fully investigate it. Thank God he fired Comey or we wouldn’t have Mueller. Thank God but even with that. No guarantees we get to the bottom of it.

Same with the Democratic IT scandal.
07-18-2018 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 09:54 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If Trump had any statesman in him he would have nominated Garland instead of a Kavanaugh.

Why?

I've said that if I were Trump, I would have proposed Garland as the the appointee-designate for the first left winger (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) to step down, in exchange for democrats agreeing to letting legitimate votes take place on future nominees. Lefties on here screamed bloody murder about that. If they won't live with that, then the hell with them, appoint whomever he wants.

But Kennedy is no leftist justice. He's more the swing vote, the guy in the middle or center. That's not who Garland is, or presumably would be. Garland for Kennedy would clearly move the court to the left. Garland for Ginsburg wouldn't.
07-18-2018 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
So there seems to be a lot of people here saying the physical server is important, but I’m not seeing exactly why they think that matters.
07-18-2018 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #58
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So there seems to be a lot of people here saying the physical server is important, but I’m not seeing exactly why they think that matters.

It's not that the physical server itself is important, and that's where people are misunderstanding. A true and correct copy can certainly be made, and can certainly provide as much data as the original. The problem, is not proving that such a copy CAN BE made, it's proving that such a copy WAS made.

The normal procedure is either to have law enforcement take control of the server and make copies, or to have a disinterested third party come in and make the copy. For now, all we have is CrowdStrike's assertions, and there is a legitimate question whether CrowdStrike is sufficiently objective to meet evidentiary requirements.

The copy certainly could be, and might very well be, complete and accurate. But that's not the issue. Proving that to the standard required to authenticate for admissibility in court is another matter entirely. And that's where the problem lies. At worst, it could make the copy, and anything obtained from it, inadmissible in court. At best, it will certainly provide credible grounds for attacking any evidence flowing from the copy.

And the further problem is that with nearly two years gone by and no proper custody chain, even if you went back to the physical servers at this point that wouldn't solve the evidentiary problem.

As someone suggested earlier, when you have a breach the three steps in order of precedence are 1) contain the damage, 2) get back up and running, and 3) figure out who did it and take appropriate action. The DNC's approach to 1) and 2) was certainly reasonable in the circumstances, but it may well have precluded 3). The way to avoid having to make such choices is to take adequate security measures up front.

Information security has never been a strong point of the Clinton organization. From Sandy Berger to Hillary's server to this, there is a pattern of cavalier attitudes toward information security. This one bit them in the butt.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2018 03:20 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-18-2018 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Hey Tom, About That Server
(07-18-2018 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-18-2018 02:37 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So there seems to be a lot of people here saying the physical server is important, but I’m not seeing exactly why they think that matters.

It's not that the physical server itself is important, and that's where people are misunderstanding. A true and correct copy can certainly be made, and can certainly provide as much data as the original. The problem, is not proving that such a copy CAN BE made, it's proving that such a copy WAS made.

The normal procedure is either to have law enforcement take control of the server and make copies, or to have a disinterested third party come in and make the copy. For now, all we have is CrowdStrike's assertions, and there is a legitimate question whether CrowdStrike is sufficiently objective to meet evidentiary requirements.

The copy certainly could be, and might very well be, complete and accurate. But that's not the issue. Proving that to the standard required to authenticate for admissibility in court is another matter entirely. And that's where the problem lies. At worst, it could make the copy, and anything obtained from it, inadmissible in court. At best, it will certainly provide credible grounds for attacking any evidence flowing from the copy.

And the further problem is that with nearly two years gone by and no proper custody chain, even if you went back to the physical servers at this point that wouldn't solve the evidentiary problem.

As someone suggested earlier, when you have a breach the three steps in order of precedence are 1) contain the damage, 2) get back up and running, and 3) figure out who did it and take appropriate action. The DNC's approach to 1) and 2) was certainly reasonable in the circumstances, but it may well have precluded 3). The way to avoid having to make such choices is to take adequate security measures up front.

Information security has never been a strong point of the Clinton organization. From Sandy Berger to Hillary's server to this, there is a pattern of cavalier attitudes toward information security. This one bit them in the butt.
Server, copy, whatever. Doesn't matter if it isn't studied be smart cyber forensics SMEs.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
07-18-2018 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.