Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Scientific Evidence on Morse Learning  (Read 11133 times)
KB1WSY
Member

Posts: 803




Ignore
« on: January 07, 2014, 01:46:44 AM »

Greetings,

As I advance in my learning of Morse code, I have been deeply struck by how passionate people are about how a ham should learn the code.

A terminological statement: when I talk about Morse, I am referring to the code itself. I am *not* referring to all of the other things that are involved in "operating CW."

There are dozens of different opinions, but on the whole they are in two broad camps:

(1) The time-honored method. This involves learning the entire character set quickly, and then starting to copy and send, usually (but not always) at a relatively slow speed. Speed is then gradually increased. Farnsworth spacing may be used. Often, emphasis is placed on "getting on the air" and it is stated that this on-air experience is a key way (or some people maintain, the only way) to improve your Morse skills. In some versions of this method, "head copy" is stressed very early on, the emphasis being on recognizing entire words or phrases. How long does it take? Well, I suspect that you could be "on the air" almost within days, using this method (I hear evidence of this when monitoring CW on 40m!). How long does it take to become proficient at higher speeds? Presumably that depends on how much you operate. One variant of this method is to start people out at a relatively high speed, with strong emphasis on "head copy." Emphasis is also placed on learning with a "buddy" or learning in a club or classroom setting if possible.

(2) The "new" Koch method (it's not really new because it dates to the 1930s). In this method, you start at a relatively high speed such as 15wpm. Farnsworth spacing may be used. Initially you learn only two characters, and you do a random-character drill (usually 5 minutes). You go on doing these random-character drills until your code copying accuracy reaches 90 percent. The moment you reach 90 percent, a third character is introduced, and you again do random drills until you reach 90 percent accuracy. This process is repeated over and over until you've learned the entire character set of approximately 40 elements. Because the drills consist of random characters, "head copy" is pretty much out of the question -- and even if you did "head copy" them, you wouldn't be able to check your "score" because you wouldn't have written them down. "Getting on the air" early-on is also pretty much out of the question, because it's hard to conduct a QSO with an incomplete character set. How long does it take? Several weeks at the very least, and in many cases, several months, before being ready to go on the air. The Koch method is almost impossible to use unless you have access to computer software (which is one reason it didn't catch on until recently) and tends to be used in an "individual" setting with people learning on their own. "Buddy" or classroom learning seems less common. A summary of Koch's research can be found here: http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk/extra/morse/html/c29.htm.

Both "schools of thought" stress the importance of avoiding the buildup of a "visual table" of the dits and dahs in your head. Morse is learned purely as a series of sounds, and hearing the sound triggers the appearance of that Morse element (or of an entire word or phrase) in the brain. Indeed, the Koch method is being promoted largely because of claims that learning slow-speed code (anything below about 12wpm) is a bad idea because when Morse is sent slowly, it is actually possible to copy it through the "lookup table" rather than the sounds. At higher speeds, the "lookup table" method breaks down. Thus, the proponents of the Koch method claim that learning code at slow speed makes it much harder to progress to higher speed. Meanwhile the proponents of the older, non-Koch method claim that by getting on the air and starting out with slow code, you will progress naturally to higher speeds and they seem unconcerned about this notion of a "speed limit."

I have yet to "meet" anyone on these ham forums who is impartial on the issue of "how to learn the code." A lot of people give lip service to the notion that "each person is different and will have their own way of learning the code." However, in practice, almost all those who have learned the code seem to be convinced that the best method to learn the code is ... the method that they used, whether it was last month or 50 years ago.

My beef with all of this is that there just doesn't seem to be any impartial scientific evidence on "which method is best." Ludwig Koch has his detractors, but at least he was a scientist (a psychologist to be precise) and his method is grounded in certain notions of how the brain learns things. Similarly, Farnsworth had an insight that the code could be learned more easily by changing some spacing parameters during the learning process. But they lived a long time ago and there seems to have been little scientific progress since. You can read lots of wonderful anecdotes and tips in "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy" but there's very little concrete science in there.

Yes I know that many people will say: "We know how to learn the code. We did it using such-and-such a method, and we successfully taught it using this method. Listen to the voice of experience. The Elmers are right."

I guess that because ham radio is a hobby, there's little academic interest in how Morse code should be learned. That's too bad. I really wish someone would do a proper study, starting out with no preconceptions. Because I also suspect that a lot of hams are wasting a lot of time: I think it is quite possible that one of the two main methods would be proven to be best, "hands down." Or perhaps, there would be some rational way to figure out which hams should use which method. I have lost track of the number of threads, here and on eHam, started by people asking "How should I learn the code?"

One last thought: quite a lot is riding on this. I have come across a lot of evidence, albeit anecdotal, that many people who try to learn the code eventually give up. Regardless of the method used, it takes a certain amount of effort, and people nowadays lead busy and stressful lives. If we want CW to continue to be a vibrant part of our hobby, it behooves us to give the best possible advice to all of those enthusiastic would-be CW operators.

73 de Martin, KB1WSY
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 01:58:23 AM by KB1WSY » Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1765




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2014, 04:00:27 AM »

I believe the only (Scientific Evidence) you will find concerning Morse learning is in your statement "each person is different and will have their own way of learning the code". True some hams think their way was the best but most realize it's just the way it was taught and that's how they learned it, so called proper spacing/speed, head copy etc. came later with on air time. My learning experience was basic and fairly common for the time, Boy Scouts with flashing light and door bell buzzer, was this the best method at the time? I highly doubt it (Navy Radioman School would probably have been better) but again we didn't know any different and it worked for us. Those of us that went on to get our Novice licenses muddled through our first hundred contacts or so and gradually grew into passable CW ops. All Methods are just options if you are aware of them and have the time/incentive to try them all which again boils down to [which one works best for YOU]. I have enjoyed reading your post about your own method of Morse learning and particularly admire your tenacity in following it through.

 
Logged
KB1WSY
Member

Posts: 803




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2014, 04:38:53 AM »

I believe the only (Scientific Evidence) you will find concerning Morse learning is in your statement "each person is different and will have their own way of learning the code".

And that's the point I'm trying to make. I want some scientific evidence. Ours is a science-based hobby and yet the evidence we have concerning how the brain handles learning Morse code and which is the best method seems incomplete, partisan, wildly out-of-date and often purely anecdotal ("this is the right method because it worked for me/us"). Even the modern iconoclasts with their Koch method are basing their pedagogy on research that was done nearly 80 years ago!!!

Yes of course, each person will have their own way. But science should have a role too, at the very least in rejecting inefficient (or even, counter-productive) learning techniques. We know so much more about cognition and learning than we did in the mid-20th century!

Thank you for the encouragement by the way. I've been finding it very tough recently, so I need all the good wishes I can get!

73 de Martin, KB1WSY
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1765




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2014, 09:04:11 AM »

I think I get your point now. I don't know at what Scientific Evidence level you would call it but perhaps a reasonable answer may come from a current/former military Morse instructor Ham. The reason being that thousands of military CW ops in the past and to some extent currently had to pass some type of pre qualifying mental/dexterity tests/exams in order to get into the program. Obviously these tests/exams were based on some type of previous and ongoing research that best predicted a successful outcome. I have no idea of what these individual traits are that the military is looking for but they do and it has proven to be successful. My take anyway.
Logged
KB1WSY
Member

Posts: 803




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2014, 09:28:11 AM »

...perhaps a reasonable answer may come from a current/former military Morse instructor Ham.

Indeed. The military had a great incentive to train radiotelegraphers efficiently. In my Internet research, I even found a paper by the NSA (!) in which they tried to figure out which were the best "types" of people for learning the code.

The obverse of that coin however is that the military can get very set in its ways; and that arguably, trainees in those schools had such a strong disciplinary incentive to succeed, that they probably did rather better than a ham "hobbyist" even if they weren't using the most efficient method!

I have found that those making claims to have "the best method" sometimes couple their claim with a reference to the method having succeeded in training the military telegraphists. Why, there is just such a thread in this very forum right now.

The Koch method was apprently used by at least some of the German military services in the years leading up to World War II, although (according to my reading) this is not well documented.

It would be great if, somewhere in the billions of pages of government documents out there, it turned out that there was indeed some kind of comparative study of Morse methods!!

Logged
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 397




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2014, 10:23:54 AM »

Martin: "One last thought: quite a lot is riding on this. I have come across a lot of evidence, albeit anecdotal, that many people who try to learn the code eventually give up. Regardless of the method used, it takes a certain amount of effort, and people nowadays lead busy and stressful lives. If we want CW to continue to be a vibrant part of our hobby, it behooves us to give the best possible advice to all of those enthusiastic would-be CW operators."

A few points:

1. Sufficient anecdotal evidence can become useful data. An anecdote is (at least) one data point.

2. There are at least two major areas of discussion here, which need to be distinguished from one another: a learning system or methods; the psychology of the person attempting to learn.

3. We can say this based on a great deal of information gathered about learning in the past: the method needs to be simple enough to be clearly understood by the learner and/or his mentor.

4. Long-term memory formation depends on several factors: repetition plain and simple; how clear-headed and focused the learner is when trying to learn; the need to break the learning process down into sections small enough to be digested in the time allowed for each episode of learning; the need for constant (eg daily) effort in order to progress; the need for ongoing review so that significant forgetting does not occur before the overall learning task is completed.

Attending carefully to #4 should allow for progress for most learners, provided there is fundamental aptitude/skill regarding ear and hand coordination, good hearing and what I would call a basic musical sensitivity.
Logged
G3XLG
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2014, 11:18:21 AM »

Hi Martin
I can't claim to have read all of the posts in this thread but have looked in on it from time to time. I have also just read your post on the lack of scientific evidence concerning methodology for learning the code - I agree it would be good to have but suspect it aint gonner happen!
In my own experience, I'm afraid I learnt the code by rote, used a borrowed key & took my 12wpm test in 1968 after a few months learning. I was not proficient however and kind of learned it parrot fashion, probably counting dots & dashes at the time! I had joined a local club at the same time, but SSB was all the rage and no-one was pushing CW! So, a few years went by when I operated only on SSB, never even had a single CW QSO & then I went QRT for some 30 odd years!
In 2011 I became interested in amateur radio again & decided to get into CW this time, at the then age of 68. I found I could still just about remember most of the alphabet, I had forgotten the numbers & I had no recollection of punctuation or prosigns. After refreshing myself on the alphabet for half an hour or so I joined in a very slow morse beginners class at the Norwich club & found I could copy about 80% of the characters at about 5 or 6 wpm. That was the start............!
Over the next 12 months, I practised a max of 20 -30 mins a day, 5 days a week using various software programs you will no doubt be familiar with. I varied it a lot, as I got bored using just one method or one program & it definitely helped bringing a bit of competition into it by having a "morse buddy". He & I checked our progress weekly with the CW elmers at the club & found that we increased our speed by roughly 1wpm/month that first year.

When practicing I did most of my copying using plain language rather than code groups which also enabled the start of some simple word head copying eg. the, of, with etc.

So by early 2012 we were upto about 12 wpm copying, & decided we would then try some sending. We had a pretty good idea of what morse should sound like after countless hours of practice using computer generated morse. We went on 2 metres FM with low power, holding the microphone near the radio loud speaker! We did this to limit the number of people who might be listening to us on air! After a few weeks we then went on 80 metres for about 30 minutes/day 3 0r 4 days/week, again using very low power. After our 80M practice QSO's we would immediately go back to 2M for a chat about the morse and to see how each had copied the sent code.

Practice with the computer continued & by the end of 2013, I was able to copy & send at about 20/21 wpm. I am having CW QSO's on air, usually at about the 16/18wpm level and have now learnt most of the CW shortened word forms used in QSO's. The rate of progress definitely slowed down for me after 12wpm was reached and there have been several brick walls (15wpm, 18wpm, & currently 24wpm) each lasting a few months. However with time & determination they do get overcome. Listening to QSO's on air helps a lot plus I have made a number of CW plain language wave files for my MP3 player at various speeds - in my case 24, 26 & 28wpm to always stretch myself in my copying - an essential part of increasing your speed! I use the MP3 player mostly when I'm out walking the dog every day.

I frequently no longer use different wpm speeds & Farnsworth speeds for my practice, as I am trying to simulate what I hear on air, not what the PC can generate. The club run two or three CW Boot Camps a year where for two solid days we just send and receive CW in groups of three or four people with an Elmer to each group. These weekends often see real progress & individuals often have  a bit of a breakthough in terms of wpm. We break up sessions every half hour or so with a coffee break, a talk on different keys or other CW topics etc. We also take turns at QSO's with each other across the table & are subject to constructive critisism from each other and the elmers!   Its also an opportunity to try out different types of key.

I think if I had realised then back in 2011 how many hours I would have to put in, I might not have started! However once you can get on the air & can send reasonably good morse with only a few errors, it is very rewarding. We all have to start somewhere, speed is not that important and I think you will be ready when you know the 40 characters, can recognise good morse and can send with only a few errors! Start with friends initially.

By the way we started using a dual paddle from the off, what was the point of using a straight key then having to change over to a paddle as your speed increased and having to learn a new technique? Please note however that we were already very aware of the sound & rhythm of good morse after all the PC practice.

So, whats my message Martin? ....... There's no short cuts, no one scientific method that brings rapid success for all, it just requires dedicated hard work & practice plus as I already said, variation in methodology & a bit of friendly competition with your peers. Setting goals to achieve in set time frames was/is very helpful for me too.

Whats my ambition? Well actually its to help & encourage as many other interested amateurs at our club to learn the code & become proficient operators as I can. Oh, and to send & receive solid copy at 25 wpm of course...!!

Good Luck Martin, keep practicing, there will be light at the end of the tunnel if you are determined enough.
Sorry for the bandwidth!
73 Ray, G3XLG
Logged
G3XLG
Member

Posts: 4




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2014, 11:30:18 AM »

Sorry
I meant to post my above comment in the other thread from KB1WSY ie "my Morse Learning Campaign"
73 Ray G3XLG
Logged
WB3CQM
Member

Posts: 117




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2014, 01:58:23 PM »

Hi Martin ,

Did you ever see this before ? http://n5dwi.com/index.html  - N5DWI QRQ Central .

I have had this theory about learning Morse code for years , and it is that if our mom would have sent Morse to us when we were little babies we would not struggle with it at 20 - 30 - and above years old.

Look at what N5DWI has to say . Let me add this one little bit of information . How is it I teach a dog over 100 words ? More like over 250 words and they can not spell ? It is called association learning. I like to call it "word association Learning "

What if we could find some one on this forum to be a test case ? You know what I mean ! And lets have this person try and learn Morse Code by words and Not by letters as N5DWI suggest.

I have actually taught homing pigeons or racing pigeons some English language , in that I mean some commands they learn by voice, and they know actual words. They did not learn individual letters, but words . The sound of the word.

I told you in your other thread , I felt I learned Morse the wrong way. But I still learned it. Cause  no# 1 Wanted to learn it ! People give up cause they really do not want to learn Morse code. That is what I think. I also think people listen to some of these people on forums that say they learn Code in 2 weeks they look at their own progress and give up. Morse code takes some people as my self , well I started to copy in 1976 and I am still learning to copy ! So I must be little slow ?

I went to my friends house with all these Koch method and so forth about 5 years ago and his reply was this. There is ONLY ONE WAY to learn Morse code - That being the Navy way - He was a Navy Morse instructor and I can tell you how he said they learned, but hopefully a old Navy cw op will post here on how they learned Morse . I know they have , but it would not hurt to repeat it . 

this post of mine is just for thought purpose - making no claims as the best or better way

73 JIM

Logged
W3JAR
Member

Posts: 50




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2014, 02:05:20 PM »

Hi,
For once my professional degree comes into practice with Ham Radio!!!!! I am so excited! So let me take a step back. My field is in adult learning. Every person has a different learning style. David Kolb has done extensive work on learning styles. Basically boiling it down to learning by experimenting, experience, observation and finally through conceptualization through visual, tactile or auditory senses.

Long story short, what works for me, observing through watching would not work for someone else. This is why there is no 1 best and only way to learn cw. Some people can spend months on LCWO.net and pick it up no problem, where basically waste their time on there to only really flourish when sending cw, or in other cases watching someone send cw.

Maybe I should build a tool that tells you, based on your learning profile, what way would be for you to use and in what order. Would that be useful?

Best!
John
W3JAR
Logged
KB1WSY
Member

Posts: 803




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2014, 02:14:49 PM »

Maybe I should build a tool that tells you, based on your learning profile, what way would be for you to use and in what order. Would that be useful?

Wow, John, that would be great! I guess the problem is, however, that I do feel I am making good progress with the Koch method despite some significant setbacks at one time or another. I've only been at it consistently since November and that's not a very long time, thus think that I should persevere with Koch for the time being. But I'd still be happy to test your tool: it could help me and others!

73 de Martin, KB1WSY
Logged
K7MEM
Member

Posts: 106


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2014, 02:49:24 PM »

Hi Martin,

I read most of everything, but it just sounds like your getting impatient. That's very common. When I started my own campaign, I already had all the letters down, but only at about 10 WPM. So when I started studying for speed, it initially went very quickly. It only took me a month the get to 15 WPM. But then my next goal was 25 WPM. That took six months. As long as there is progress, even if it's small, your doing good.

But I think G3XLG had something in his post. I was also testing for the test. By that I mean, I wasn't copying converted text out of books or letter groups. In the tests I would be taking, I wasn't going to hear book passages or letter groups. I was going to hear a simulated QSO. That's what I studied with. In a CW QSO, at least for me, there is a lot of anticipation. When you hear "rst" you know some numbers are coming. When you hear "wx hr" you know that there is going to be a short weather report. Same with "name" and "qth".

Most CW QSOs contain will the same general information. As you get more confidant, by getting on the air, the QSOs start to a little extra to the conversation by asking questions or elaborating on something. But you also learn not to go overboard, if your talking to some who is also trying to learn.

So I recommend that you keep working. Don't study too hard. I only studied 2-3 times a day for 15 minutes each time. Some times you fill like you have been struck dumb. But you just have to keep on going.
Logged

Martin - K7MEM

http://www.k7mem.com
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3900




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2014, 07:52:09 PM »

Quote
I think I get your point now. I don't know at what Scientific Evidence level you would call it but perhaps a reasonable answer may come from a current/former military Morse instructor Ham. The reason being that thousands of military CW ops in the past and to some extent currently had to pass some type of pre qualifying mental/dexterity tests/exams in order to get into the program. Obviously these tests/exams were based on some type of previous and ongoing research that best predicted a successful outcome. I have no idea of what these individual traits are that the military is looking for but they do and it has proven to be successful. My take anyway.

Great answer!

When I enlisted I was given a battery of test on everything from which direction a nut went on a bolt to advanced math and even a test where learning Morse code was given.  Three letters were  briefly "taught."  They were: I N T.  Once the three letters were explained then the test began.  The letters were sent and a block had to be penciled in for each character heard.  As the test proceeded the speed increased until, as I recall, all but just a few quit in despair.

That was the only "test" given to me for Morse and as I recall I lasted quite a long time before I finally had to quit.

As for "methods" of learning code, the military used what I called the "Brute force and ignorance" method.  You set with a set of cans on the head, paper and pencil at hand and the code was taught a few letters/numbers at a time.  When those letters and any previously learned characters were learned then a test was given and if you passed you were given 3 more characters. This was done for 8 hours a day with a five minute break each hour and an hour off for lunch.

While this might seem brutal I recall that very few actually flunked out.  Some fell behind but they were accommodated to a certain extent before they washed out. 

I think the aptitude  "test" and the "brute force and ignorance" method has been a tried and true "scientific method."  This method has fielded tens of thousands of radio operators and intercept operators down through the years.

No doubt the Farnsworth and Koch methods have also fielded many CW operators as well but I have no doubt they are a poor second and third.

How much scientific evidence do you need?

Martin, no disrespect, but I really do believe you're thinking this thing to death! At the very least you're being loyal to a method that continues to create problems for you.

Al - K8AXW

Logged
KB1WSY
Member

Posts: 803




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2014, 05:23:10 AM »

As for "methods" of learning code, the military used what I called the "Brute force and ignorance" method.  You set with a set of cans on the head, paper and pencil at hand and the code was taught a few letters/numbers at a time.  When those letters and any previously learned characters were learned then a test was given and if you passed you were given 3 more characters. This was done for 8 hours a day with a five minute break each hour and an hour off for lunch.

Al, that sounds like a close copy of the Koch method! That's almost exactly how Koch did it, except his class were commercial operators initially!

It differs from Koch in only two ways:
--Koch adds only one character at a time, not three, before testing.
--Koch believed that learning Morse for more than a few hours per day was counterproductive; but I bet you he changed his mind when his method started being used by the military in the run-up to WWII!! (There is very little evidence about what he did during that period; but it does seem that his method was used by at least some of the German services.)

Martin, no disrespect, but I really do believe you're thinking this thing to death! At the very least you're being loyal to a method that continues to create problems for you.

Actually you have greatly reassured me. It seems that the military who taught you may have heard of Koch, or had independently come to similar conclusions. The U.S. military radiotelegraph services were investigating the Koch method as early as 1942, according to what I have read.

How about this "thought experiment" Al. How would you have reacted if, after learning the first 15 letters of the alphabet and a couple of weeks before the end of the course, your instructor had said: "OK class, now it's time to Just Get On The Air"?

You are showing absolutely no disrespect OM. I'm keen to do things the best way and a lively discussion about it helps clarify one's ideas. Your posts in this thread and in other forums are informative and useful.

I do have a tendency to "over-think" almost everything I do in life, whether professional or leisure. On the plus side, when I get something done, it usually meets my own very finicky standards. On the minus side, not infrequently the task never gets "finished." Viz., ham radio: except that this time I can feel it now, I will be on the air soon.

Now I will get back to vanquishing that pesky letter "G" that is giving me so much trouble.

73 de Martin, KB1WSY
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:36:21 AM by KB1WSY » Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3900




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2014, 08:46:26 AM »

WSY: Martin, I wasn't aware there was any similarity between the Koch method and the method used by the military.  Interesting!

To use your analogy, "get on the air before you learn ALL of the code" can't be done any more than my instructor putting me on a military net without being able to receive all of the letters or my speed was so slow that I could never copy anything.

This wasn't my point about "just get on the air."  If I did, I failed to understand your situation completely and for that I apologize.

If anything, I read your problem wrong because you were talking this Koch method over and over and it was obviously failing you at some point.  Whenever that happens it's time to back off and try banging your head against another wall.   Grin

Let me suggest something.  If you're having a problem with a particular character, try confining your learning of that particular character with just a few other characters.  Then confine your practice of listening to the troublesome character with ones that are similar in element formation.  

You have to be careful here and not confine yourself to this for very long or you run the risk of losing what you have learned.  The point would be to narrow your focus to a difficult character for a  short period of time and then go back to the rest of what you have learned.

This "narrowing your focus" can be done again and again but just not for very long.

If your training material doesn't permit this, then you'll need to come up with a way, perhaps sending the characters to a tape player, and then playing those back to focus on the troublesome character. 

This will also give you sending practice which is a good thing as well.  Some feel that sending while learning the code is complicating things but the fact of the matter is sending compliments receiving and also breaks up the boredom of just receiving.

Al - K8AXW
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:51:34 AM by K8AXW » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!