User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 263

  1. #141
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    I don't think there ever was a third wave of feminism, I'm afraid. The second wave sort of died in the 80s between the so-called feminist sex wars and backlash, and nothing ever emerged afterward that really fills the shoes of the second wave. But if you think about it, the first wave did not run right into the second one. It took a while.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #142
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    No, I don't think they are different, which is part of the issue. Did you hear about the Slutwalk a few months back, and the girl holding up the "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" sign? People defended that shit. One of the most common defenses was along the lines of "you're talking about the black version of the word, but we're talking about the human version." Oh, really? So the black version isn't human?

    Feminism can't fight all the world's ills/prejudices but it should for fucking sure not make them worse.
    You know, these days I'm beyond giving a shit about this kind of thing. It's a reference to that goofy Yoko Ono song, and if taken in the SPIRIT of the song/slogan, it is obviously meant to point out the universality of women's oppression across the world and across movements. Of course, I would not have chosen those words myself, but not because I think they contribute to racism...rather because having been privy to the kind of discourse that goes on in feminist circles these days, I am aware that it would cause a disruption. In other words, their problem was that their choice of language was not expedient, not that they were racist.

    I hate focus on the petty (like Double X writers talking incessantly and pretentiously about the feminism of Lena Dunham's naked body in her show and other stupid shit), and this is one more form of it. It just leads to feminism being viewed as a vehicle for self-righteousness and PC policing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't think there ever was a third wave of feminism, I'm afraid. The second wave sort of died in the 80s between the so-called feminist sex wars and backlash, and nothing ever emerged afterward that really fills the shoes of the second wave. But if you think about it, the first wave did not run right into the second one. It took a while.
    Yeah, and anymore it seems to just be a blackhole of very "sophisticated" critique wherein any previous feminist theory can be entered and you'll be provided with a million ways in which it is now invalid. You can go full circle anymore no matter where you start.

    One almost misses the structure (both politically and theoretically) of the second wave, even though it was responsible for producing the separatists and other weirdos that everyone remembers only with embarrassment.

    I blame the French, honestly. French theory is a plague on rationality and a damper on action, and it seems to have hit feminism something fierce.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #143
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yeah, and anymore it seems to just be a blackhole of very "sophisticated" critique wherein any previous feminist theory can be entered and you'll be provided with a million ways in which it is now invalid. You can go full circle anymore no matter where you start.
    It has become disconnected from practical concerns, basically. Critics who say feminism is no longer useful find justification in this problem. They say that if there are such important issues facing women, surely feminists could put aside petty, esoteric debates to confront them. It's almost a good point, if not for that fact that I know there are really concerns that women ought to confront. However, that merely refutes the point but does not answer the question within. Why can't feminists get their shit together and accomplish something anymore?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    One almost misses the structure (both politically and theoretically) of the second wave, even though it was responsible for producing the separatists and other weirdos that everyone remembers only with embarrassment.
    Yes, but that sort of thing is the inevitable result of a social movement. If you don't have that problem, you probably aren't getting anything done either.

    To be clear, I know that between 1990 and now there have definitely been improvements. I just can't help but feel that the rate of change has declined, and I definitely think the topic of womens' equality has become a non-starter in popular discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I blame the French, honestly. French theory is a plague on rationality and a damper on action, and it seems to have hit feminism something fierce.
    I'm not sure what you mean, unless you're referring to deconstructionism and such post modern things. I do think post modernism has blighted many things.

    I suggest another problem has been a move toward libertarianism. The idea of social solidarity has lost some favor, and any broad position for feminists is undermined by any one individual woman taking issue with it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #144
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    That said, all these movements have the common element of fighting some form of prejudice, where individuals and groups are assumed to have traits that are generally used as justification for unfair treatment. If you combat prejudice (and advocate knowledge and understanding), then you can fix all sorts of problems, because prejudice stems from a way of thinking. It's all the same pattern. (edit: but there is also emotional elements that override people's abilities to realize their prejudice toward some groups, and sub groups have unique challenges ie. gay marriage doesn't apply to other groups because other groups have marriage rights)
    There is also the notion that to fight prejudice (or injustice, or abuse, or any other ill) anywhere is to fight it everywhere. If I can get more women (or blacks or . . . ) a chance for good jobs in my organization, I shouldn't feel guilty that I'm not achieving gender parity in Congress or raising the average earnings of women to equal that of men. Who is served by causing straight white women to abandon equality movements expanded to include blacks, gays, etc.? That is just another flavor of playing all or nothing, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the end, all one has is the satisfaction of having stood up for one's principles.

    As an example, consider the founding of the United States. Some in the Continental Congress saw the institution of slavery as incompatible with the basic values of freedom and equality set forth in the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal"). Others saw no inconsistency, perhaps considering African slaves as not quite "men". The Declaration nearly died over the insistence of the anti-slavery contingent that slavery be forbidden in the new nation. They ultimately accepted, however, that for there to be a new nation at all, the issues had to be separated. Slavery would be tolerated long enough to declare and win independence, seen as the greater and more immediate goal. The battle over slavery could and would be fought later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To be clear, I know that between 1990 and now there have definitely been improvements. I just can't help but feel that the rate of change has declined, and I definitely think the topic of womens' equality has become a non-starter in popular discourse.
    An easy answer is to say that the rate of change declines as one approaches an asymptote. The more involved explanation is to note that the more improvements that occur, the more people think the problem is solved, when only the part that they personally witness has progressed. It also suggests that we are getting close to parts of the problem that hit very close to home for even "mainstream" people, questioning not just external behaviors, but fundamental personal assumptions and beliefs. It's like trying to lose those last few pounds when on a diet. You can't just cut out sweets and go for a run every so often; it's time for some basic lifestyle change.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #145
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    No, I don't think they are different, which is part of the issue. Did you hear about the Slutwalk a few months back, and the girl holding up the "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" sign? People defended that shit. One of the most common defenses was along the lines of "you're talking about the black version of the word, but we're talking about the human version." Oh, really? So the black version isn't human?

    Feminism can't fight all the world's ills/prejudices but it should for fucking sure not make them worse.
    I'm sorry, how is it "making it worse"? What am I missing? Are we supposed to pretend slavery didn't happen? In what way does that sign endorse a racist message? Isn't it a symbol of solidarity? Is it offensive because black people have suffered more than anyone else? Are we supposed to be competing for the title of most oppressed minority?

    I for one, wouldn't attend anything called a "Slutwalk", with or without questionable banners. I heard about one held in India recently attended by women in their underwear. Do they really expect to be taken seriously with this kind of exhibitionism? I'm not a slut and don't consider embracing sluttishness to be in any way liberating.
    People say they've "reclaimed" the word as gays did "queer" and African Americans did "nigger". Balls. They've simply redefined themselves as whores rather than virgins - that age-old patriarchy-imposed dichotomy. Why can't they invent their own language instead of co-opting terms of abuse? It's like they are clamouring to invite derision.
    I find it difficult to take such people seriously, and if I do, as someone broadly sympathetic to the cause, then what hope is there of persuading the more entrenched?
    I'm not interested in fighting for a woman's right to dress and act like a retard. If that's what feminism has been reduced to, count me out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Cooperative problem solving skills are key, because even fractured groups can work together toward common goals, where fractured groups that compete with each other will be weaker from the outside. Competitive models often resort to destructive tearing the other "team" down to make you look good. Cooperative models try to work together for mutual benefit.
    You sound like David Brent. Where are you lecturing next? I'll be sure to book a ticket.
    I think you are probably well-intentioned, but setting yourself up as an unelected mediator/counsellor type is pretty odious. Not to mention self-aggrandising.
    Just sayin.
    There are variable definitions of trolling. Most definitions say it's anything written to elicit a response, but there is a connotation of intentionally making your argument more emotional or saying things that you don't actually believe in.
    If you've had the misfortune of following the poster in question you'll find that he frequently contradicts himself violently. Either this implies mental instability or disingenuousness. Neither option promises fruitful discussion.
    In any case, a key theme is control of the other person. If you choose to respond calmly, then they don't have control.
    Simpler just to put the person on ignore. This has the happy added benefit of improving the quality of the thread.

    edit addition: What do you think? We (organgey and I) covered a lot of ground, so what did you see that she did well and I didn't, or otherwise what was your "point system"? I think criticism is a good thing, but it needs to be substantiated otherwise it's not very constructive.

    in other words: gimme something to go on here. offer some substitute.
    My purpose is not to be constructive or to persuade. I don't subscribe to your mantra of Kumbaya. I didn't offer criticism either, though I think there can be value in tearing down, even when there is nothing to substitute. It's the INTP speciality, in fact. Only the intellectually fragile need to cling to old ideas for fear that abandoning them would lead to intolerable uncertainty.
    It should have been clear that my comments were light-hearted, probably a reaction to your tendency to take yourself rather seriously.

    As a friend pointed out to me recently, all debates in the public domain quickly cease to be about the subject under discussion and turn into contests of oneupmanship. While you claim a lofty interest in idea-exchange, it seems my endorsement of Orangey offended you...giving further weight to this idea. Your game is more disguised, but it's the same old game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I blame the French, honestly. French theory is a plague on rationality and a damper on action, and it seems to have hit feminism something fierce.
    Can you expand on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It also suggests that we are getting close to parts of the problem that hit very close to home for even "mainstream" people, questioning not just external behaviors, but fundamental personal assumptions and beliefs. It's like trying to lose those last few pounds when on a diet. You can't just cut out sweets and go for a run every so often; it's time for some basic lifestyle change.
    Seriously? I think you are pretty divorced from reality if you think the position of women in society is as trivial as a socialite trying to get into a little black dress. Wow. Talk about white people's problems....
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  6. #146
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    An easy answer is to say that the rate of change declines as one approaches an asymptote. The more involved explanation is to note that the more improvements that occur, the more people think the problem is solved, when only the part that they personally witness has progressed. It also suggests that we are getting close to parts of the problem that hit very close to home for even "mainstream" people, questioning not just external behaviors, but fundamental personal assumptions and beliefs. It's like trying to lose those last few pounds when on a diet. You can't just cut out sweets and go for a run every so often; it's time for some basic lifestyle change.
    Funny, I've used the exact phrase asymptotic curve to describe what's going on here. To some extent it does seem that the closer we get to equality, the slower people approach it, thus we never actually get there. I don't think this is some sort of natural law, however, so it doesn't have to be so. There are still plenty of gains for women to strive for even in the developed world, no the less the rest of the world. I think people are possibly focusing on the wrong thing to generate motivation. For example, the issue of women taking in 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. I don't deny that it's unfair, but I do think it lacks rhetorical weight. It sounds to people like a minor issue of quantification, which doesn't really rile up crowds. To me, one of the best manifestations of the inequality that still exists is in leadership. For example, the US senate has achieved it's all time record of female members with 20. Given that women comprise a little over 50% of the population, 20% is not an impressive record. Both in the government and in private business women are still a minority amongst leadership that can only result from some kind of bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Seriously? I think you are pretty divorced from reality if you think the position of women in society is as trivial as a socialite trying to get into a little black dress. Wow. Talk about white people's problems....
    I think it's incredibly obvious that the point was not to compare them in value or importance. It was an analogy about the process. As such, it did not trivialize the cause.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #147
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    My purpose is not to be constructive or to persuade.
    I see a lot of talking trash and saying "wow this sucks" everywhere in life but I don't really see people saying "hey how about this gets changed." I don't have these answers and I don't blame people for not having them either. But as a group [could they be found]?

    If you wanna sit around and complain, that's not a bad thing, there are real problems and you need to talk about them to identify them. So you're doing that. But if that's not connected to actually wanting to do something or support something or change something, what's the point?* If it's not connected to a goal, then frequently it just falls apart into wallowing in my opinion.

    *Edit: I left the above basically unedited but wanted to point out there is a lighter tone to this than perhaps it could be read as. This is not a rhetorical question or an accusation. What do you want from this? Just some fun? Information gathering? Group bonding? Perhaps there is confusion here that makes me seem like I am 'holier than thou' - my beliefs and goals are mine and I don't extend to anyone else. Having a passing interest in a topic without a goal is fine. I watch the news to stay informed without really doing anything. And I believe acknowledging a problem is certainly better than silence.

    ---

    I'll just take it as an opportunity to try and commit myself to finding a constructive outlet.

    ...debates in the public domain quickly cease to be about the subject under discussion and turn into contests of oneupmanship. While you claim a lofty interest in idea-exchange, it seems my endorsement of Orangey offended you...giving further weight to this idea.
    I'd point that, without explanation, you stated a score that she was winning and I was losing. In response I mentioned that criticism is a good thing and that I'm open to evaluating the relative merits of ideas - I don't think that my ideas are perfect. You go on to state you don't desire to be constructive in this instance, and then claim that I'm taking part in one-up-manship.

    To some extent, yes, my ideas are a part of me and effect my ego, but they aren't me. I believe the core concepts of maintaining certain behaviors to make conversations and debate are functional ways of improving discussion, letting people build on ideas, and importantly, allowing for criticism (even if it isn't worded nicely, indeed, because almost inevitably it won't be worded nicely). So far where it has been addressed I've shown some examples of how and why I think these ideas work, and why I question the effectiveness of the reactions of "simply ignore" or "counter protest" or "shame them." Clearly, this needs to be mediated by comparing the results of different strategies, and the ways (time, place) they are employed, as some might be more effective in different environments.

    I have not elected myself into any role, I am simply stating what I see as effective and ineffective. Edit: I also want to state (again) that I am not saying that anyone else "should" or "must" do what I'm suggesting, or that there is only one way to do things. It is a suggestion that has been offered after the concept was questioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    There is also the notion that to fight prejudice (or injustice, or abuse, or any other ill) anywhere is to fight it everywhere. If I can get more women (or blacks or . . . ) a chance for good jobs in my organization, I shouldn't feel guilty that I'm not achieving gender parity in Congress or raising the average earnings of women to equal that of men. Who is served by causing straight white women to abandon equality movements expanded to include blacks, gays, etc.? That is just another flavor of playing all or nothing, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the end, all one has is the satisfaction of having stood up for one's principles.
    Well, it's a combined effort. Change can come from small changes in everyday interaction if it's widespread, and organized movements can be groups of people on the internet deciding to just go out and have discussions with their friends on the topic, or making the commitment to say something when they see something wrong in a way that doesn't alienate the people who's perspectives you want to change. I don't know if it's so much about guilt or getting the support of any one group as it is doing what you can where you can to shape things. I can't fix congress by myself. Could a group effort that I was one very small part of do that? Possibly.

    But I'd agree, you have to accept compromise.
    Last edited by Bamboo; 02-24-2013 at 12:47 AM. Reason: noted in post
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  8. #148
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Funny, I've used the exact phrase asymptotic curve to describe what's going on here. To some extent it does seem that the closer we get to equality, the slower people approach it, thus we never actually get there. I don't think this is some sort of natural law, however, so it doesn't have to be so. There are still plenty of gains for women to strive for even in the developed world, no the less the rest of the world. I think people are possibly focusing on the wrong thing to generate motivation. For example, the issue of women taking in 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. I don't deny that it's unfair, but I do think it lacks rhetorical weight. It sounds to people like a minor issue of quantification, which doesn't really rile up crowds. To me, one of the best manifestations of the inequality that still exists is in leadership. For example, the US senate has achieved it's all time record of female members with 20. Given that women comprise a little over 50% of the population, 20% is not an impressive record. Both in the government and in private business women are still a minority amongst leadership that can only result from some kind of bias.
    Funny, for me the 75 cents/$1 thing is really clarifying. I guess it doesn't have emotional impact like domestic abuse would, but for me that shouts: this looks like a problem. And an objectively demonstrable one at that.

    With the 20% figure, though it begs the question, are women simply not looking to get into these positions (perhaps I'd call this self-selection bias), or are they not being voted into these positions (external bias against them)?

    I love seeing stats. Then it's not just some sensationalized problem, the numbers are there. (of course, you can lie with statistics, which introduces skepticism...how was data collected quantified etc etc).
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  9. #149
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think it's incredibly obvious that the point was not to compare them in value or importance. It was an analogy about the process. As such, it did not trivialize the cause.
    Of course, you're entitled to assess it on your own terms, and since those terms often involve trivialising the plight of women, it's unsurprising (and equally uninteresting) to me what your opinion is.

    It is a fact (and not merely a matter of opinion) that suggesting the battle for gender equality is all but won (which the image of "the last few pounds" and the "asymptotic curve" most certainly does) trivialises the very real struggles that women still face around the world, and even in the supposedly liberal West, in achieving parity with men.

    If anything, we have been regressing for the past few decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    What do you want from this? Just some fun? Information gathering? Group bonding?
    Why is this your concern?

    Mostly I engage when I feel the need to correct the misapprehensions of others or to entertain myself. I don't feel like there is much to be learnt here, other than about the many and various ways in which people can be wrong / misguided.

    I'd point that, without explanation, you stated a score that she was winning and I was losing. In response I mentioned that criticism is a good thing and that I'm open to evaluating the relative merits of ideas - I don't think that my ideas are perfect. You go on to state you don't desire to be constructive in this instance, and then claim that I'm taking part in one-up-manship.
    This bothers you, eh?
    This is not a formal debate. Skimming through the conversation, I found myself agreeing with Orangey, particularly, that your tone towards her was laughably patronising. And your enthusiasm to engage with someone widely regarded as a troll seemed naive, at best, at worst, an attempt to give validity to vitriol and hatespeech.
    There is no debate to be had over whether or not gender equality is desirable. That debate has already been had and won. To even entertain doubt about that, doesn't make a person broad-minded. You are very much mistaken if you think it does. Neither does trying to find agreement or commonality with all sides in a debate. That is simply the mark of someone who lacks appropriate powers of discrimination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #150
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    Funny, for me the 75 cents/$1 thing is really clarifying. I guess it doesn't have emotional impact like domestic abuse would, but for me that shouts: this looks like a problem. And an objectively demonstrable one at that.
    Accounting just isn't exciting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    With the 20% figure, though it begs the question, are women simply not looking to get into these positions (perhaps I'd call this self-selection bias), or are they not being voted into these positions (external bias against them)?
    I think it's both. I think women are still conditioned to not seek these sorts of positions as much, and I still think there might be somewhat of a voting bias against them. However, I think a third element is the greatest one. I think women who do seek high political office face hostility from men in politics. It doesn't matter whether or not women would be able to get the votes, because in the internal, behind the scenes process men make it harder for women.


    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Of course, you're entitled to assess it on your own terms, and since those terms often involve trivialising the plight of women, it's unsurprising (and equally uninteresting) to me what your opinion is.
    You are willfully wrong about my regards toward the plight of women, and you may be the only person in the world including those in this forum who makes the mistake, give a couple.

    You could do more to explain what he apparently meant rather than talk about how I'm wrong just because I'm me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    It is a fact (and not merely a matter of opinion)...
    So, presumably a matter of opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    that suggesting the battle for gender equality is all but won (which the image of "the last few pounds" and the "asymptotic curve" most certainly does) trivialises the very real struggles that women still face around the world, and even in the supposedly liberal West, in achieving parity with men.

    If anything, we have been regressing for the past few decades.
    First of all, it is important that I believe this discussion and most like it is focusing on the developing world. I don't think anyone is saying there's good progress for womens' rights in Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the way and asymptotic curve works, it applies no matter what part of the curve your at, it's a trend. It signifies nothing about the degree of progress in and of itself.

    Now, to say that there hasn't been any progress would be ludicrous. There obviously has been. Even between 1990 and now there's been progress, because there has been some wage increase, there are more women in leadership positions, more women getting master and doctorates and performing well in school, etc... The onus is on you to explain how that isn't progress or what counters that progress. As I've said, I don't think we've achieved the goal, and I think the rate of progress has slowed down since the 80s or so. I also just said that the asymptotic curve is not how this has to be. So, my stance is mostly the opposite of denying the concerns of feminism, it just accounts for the fact that there has been some progress.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Guns ARE equal rights.
    By SpankyMcFly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 294
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:32 PM
  4. Catholic ban on women priests 'illegal under Harriet Harman equality bill'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:59 AM
  5. UK Lesbians Given Equal Birth Rights
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 04:02 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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO