u guys suck: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » u guys suck » u guys suck

u guys suck

Page: 1 2

u guys suck

Shygirl
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 08, 2007
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/08/07 - 12:32 PM: Subject: u guys suck	#1
Are you guys smart or wannabes? you waste your time here fueding over if you type propperly or not... which leads me to think... 1. ur old and cranky 2. ur a conservative and never texted b 4 3. u make urself feel better by pretending ur smart 4. u dont get enuf attention in rlf.. kids dont visit u n e mor.. wonder y... 5. ur a wannabe if any of these applies to you we can safely say... your a loser. my advice to you......... kill yourself it will help us all trust me..

DannyP
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Location: Tallahassee, Fl
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 257

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/08/07 - 02:27 PM:	#2
1. I'm 21 and happy 2. I'm liberal and I have "texted b4", just not on a forum that involves discussion of clear ideas. 3. Intelligence is discussed on this forum, you should look it up; Personally I don't even know what "smart" means. 4. These forums are basically anonymous...I could only hope that getting attention on a site like this is not anyones first priority. 5. Yes, I am a wannabe. A wannabe what? Thats the question Well, there's some philsophical advice: kill yourself. You're a spitting image of Albert Camus. My advice to you, turn off mtv for 2 seconds. Open a book, do some psychedelics and contimplate your existence...or just kill yourself.
_____________________ "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern." -William Blake

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 147
Total Posts: 2258

Posted 08/08/07 - 03:05 PM:	#3
People who talk in text speak should be taken outside and shot. - nosos 21 yr old happy anarchist
_____________________ "The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

Avedis
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 175

Posted 08/08/07 - 03:18 PM:	#4
shygirl - philosophy can be a difficult and complex subject, thus the interest in clear communication. I'm not sure why trying to communicate clearly so that difficult concepts and complex arguments can be better understood and evaluated is a problem.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 08/08/07 - 03:20 PM:	#5
wez canz savely sayz wez staied awake moore in skool then u andz hafs mo workings braein cellz. if yoz cant speakes bettur then Jar Jar Binks youz notz goin ta bez able ta dizcuz anythinz complecatid so uz best git back to uz airhead texting. byez. wez not pretund to bez smart nor azk anyones to bez smurt here, but wez ask that youz meetz a basic minium levelz requered fer uzeful discushions -- thez cutoff iz, as mentuned, that youz be morez articulate thanz Jar Jar. Edited by Paul on 08/08/07 - 03:25 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 113
Total Posts: 1172

Posted 08/08/07 - 03:35 PM:	#6
Text speak or "street slang" in general might have been an interesting topic for the social sciences forum. Text speak evolved origionaly to cut down on the number of characters required to communicate when typing is difficult due to the fiddly keypads on mobile phones. So why use it in wider contexts? especialy since now with predictive text it is not even necessarily the most efficient method of texting. shygirl obviously felt that an preference for communicating in a specific way marks one out as young and 'not-square' that similarity especialy similarity with no advantage other than a social one is desirable. I'm sure she was in theory capable of communicating in standard english - if not she will suffer reduced social and employment prospects - so the question is why is text speak so important to the identity of what I'm guessing is a little lower middle class girl. My only guess is that she is the one that is being socialy xenophobic and that the main function of slang is to exclude people who do do not have the same cultural background and are not connected to the same current of faddism and hence unable to master it. - in short it was her that was being an elitist wannabe not us.
_____________________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 08/08/07 - 05:14 PM:	#7
Machiveli wrote: I'm sure she was in theory capable of communicating in standard english Speaking as someone who once scored high school exit exam essays, I'd put the odds of her being literate as farily low. It's a rare skill. People who never practice writing never learn to write.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

philosofear
Dualist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: My mind
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 287

Posted 08/08/07 - 06:28 PM:	#8
I was just wondering if their is anything to keep banned people from rejoining under a different name?
_____________________ "The unexamined life is not worth living" -Socrates

Jamon
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 25

Posted 08/08/07 - 09:53 PM:	#9
Well I have no idea what that was. Here is another profile using that email. If that is a real person, I'm certainly intrigued. It was a good idea banning her, and I encourage you to ban all teen girls in the future... especially if they're hot.

loveofsophia
Understanding

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 560

Posted 08/08/07 - 11:41 PM:	#10
I don't get that post honestly. Is she like joking...is she like serious and trying to throw in a joke to cover that she is so, like, serious. Is she just like annoyed and being an anonymous ass-wipe. Anyway...totally awesome choice for a bane man...I know my righteous approval is so necessitated by her wanton uncoolness. swaggers off with my cool "nerdo" walk (for thats the type of walk of those in these forum halls, like, dude.) Edited by loveofsophia on 08/08/07 - 11:50 PM
_____________________ It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 08/09/07 - 02:15 AM:	#11
1. Bang! 2. Bang! 3. Bang! 4. Bang! 5. Bang!
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Machiveli
savage butter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Total Topics: 113
Total Posts: 1172

Posted 08/09/07 - 02:21 AM:	#12
Jamon wrote: Well I have no idea what that was. Here is another profile using that email. If that is a real person, I'm certainly intrigued. It was a good idea banning her, and I encourage you to ban all teen girls in the future... especially if they're hot. ... maybe, but judging by her posts entirely unable to give informed consent
_____________________ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident" -Sartre

pmd
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 154

Posted 08/09/07 - 05:34 AM:	#13
Is it wrong that I really enjoy watching people get banned? I mean, when I saw shygirl's posts, I was always tempted to reply with something like "Banned in 5...4...3..." probably so I could brag about predicting it later. I definitely get too much satisfaction reading "Banned. Reason: Illiteracy" and the like. Maybe that's something for the ethics thread. See? Shygirl's given us ideas for two threads now!

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 08/09/07 - 08:26 AM:	#14
philosofear wrote: I was just wondering if their is anything to keep banned people from rejoining under a different name? It's not as though she could be inconspicuous. The general plan though is that Jamon will entertain them so that they don't want to come back. If that fails, the person will have to know to clear cookies, get a new IP address and switch emails. If they do come back then their ISP as a whole is banned and proxy-blocking measures go into effect.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

ssu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 159

Posted 08/09/07 - 09:54 AM:	#15
I noticed that this forum is good one for philosophical debates as even this "Shygirl" and her being banned has sparked some philosophical debate in "off topic" and "feedback" sections. I was one of those idiots who replied to Shygirl on her now deleted posts. I thought that her ideas about "War on terror" were so naive they had to be a joke. And this leads to another interesting philosophical question (which isn't about banning someone for using even worse English that I'm using here). Assume you have a child or nearly a child (a teenager) coming on to this forum after hearing an exciting introduction to science and philosophy or reading some book which we would put in "Popular Science". With the enthusiasm of a child this new member starts to write about one's own ideas based on that limited knowledge with even using proper English. Now what kind of a response would this child get from adults (or the young adults) who have studied these questions in a University (or somewhere else) for some years and who presume to be talking to another adult? It's quite obvious: is this guy (or gal) naive, an idiot or a just a crank? Is this some kind of a joke or is the writer trying to being sarcastic? I would think about what kind of an impact these negative replies have on the teen. For myself to get replies like "For crying out loud, ssu, don't you have any clue about blah blah..." or "I suggest that ssu would read some basic blah blah before posting nonsense here..." I'm only gracious, if the reply truly informs me about my own ignorance. I would be happy getting this kind of feedback, because talking about Philosophy isn't a game for me to boost my own ego. But many children and even young adults would take these kind of negative comments truly personally and loose interest on the subject they have thought about. I have unfortunately seen this in my own University with a student getting a real pounding from a professor on the students "not-rigorous-enough-ideas", even if the ideas are interesting and by no means rubbish. The student ends his studies right there. After all, one to be innovative one has to be in a certain ways as a child. But OK, we are not in a Kindergarten here. And of course, only after some time can we from the written answers make out if some writer is ignorant, a child or a crank. Now using common sense the answer is would be that it's a crank: if you can't understand it, it's nonsense. After all, if somebody would have something really new to write about, why would they write here and not in a scientific journal? But I think this is an interesting philosophical question for the administrator/moderator: How can actually one see if a writer a crank, a child or maybe a writer that has a truly a new insight? If there would be guidelines to do it, then why couldn't a program do the things that a moderator does?

loveofsophia
Understanding

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 560

Posted 08/09/07 - 11:24 AM:	#16
This is a good point with some odd points scattered in between. What I take from it is an encouragement to be mindful of beginners. But I do believe her blatant rudeness and telling others to kill themselves is worthy of a little reprimand. The shame, if she feels any or even reads this stuff, might do her some good.
_____________________ It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 08/09/07 - 05:15 PM:	#17
A number of those shunned people, also do it anyways; as well, I just wish to point out that some areas of education allow txt speech as 'legitimate english'. Banned for illiteracy? Nah. Banned for a few other reasons? Since this is indeed Pauls' domain, or whatever you wish to call it, his rules define it, even though occassionally, it may impede open discussion, for what I find a particularly valid reason.

Erik
Professor

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Location: Sierra Madre, CA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 540

Posted 08/10/07 - 01:34 AM:	#18
ssu wrote: I would think about what kind of an impact these negative replies have on the teen. For myself to get replies like "For crying out loud, ssu, don't you have any clue about blah blah..." or "I suggest that ssu would read some basic blah blah before posting nonsense here..." I'm only gracious, if the reply truly informs me about my own ignorance. I would be happy getting this kind of feedback, because talking about Philosophy isn't a game for me to boost my own ego. But many children and even young adults would take these kind of negative comments truly personally and loose interest on the subject they have thought about. I have unfortunately seen this in my own University with a student getting a real pounding from a professor on the students "not-rigorous-enough-ideas", even if the ideas are interesting and by no means rubbish. The student ends his studies right there. After all, one to be innovative one has to be in a certain ways as a child. I'll get to generalities in a minute but concerning the specific case of shygirl, I highly doubt that people would have reacted to her with such hostility [actually it wasn't really hostility as much as a lack of seriousness] if she'd shown the least bit of effort or humility during here brief stay here. Instead she came in like a spoiled little brat - almost as a caricature so absurd as to hardly be believable - and began hurling insults when people reciprocated the absurdity in a mocking, playful manner. This case is much different than a professor ridiculing a young student in front of their classmates. I've actually been on the receiving end of a teacher's attempted mockery before, so I can relate to the unpleasant feelings that linger on concerning intellectual pursuits for "victims" of this type of arrogant and aggressive behaviour. But back to shygirl for a moment. After reading just one of her posts, I was going to request a revision and politely ask her to do her best at writing in clear and "proper" English. At this point I wasn't really sure if she was being serious or not, and my feeling was that if she was in fact being serious, she would gladly comply with the forum rules to the best of her ability. We're not asking for perfect English [mine surely isn't], but I think most of us can generally distinguish when someone is sincerely struggling to express themselves clearly in the language and when they're simply being lazy, and I don't think any "reasonable" person would doubt that she belonged to the second category. Furthermore, to me it appeared that she was basically trying to be an annoyance, and I think this was corroborated when she launched into more absurdities, this time a ridiculous, childish tirade against those of us [apparently old, conservative "nerds"] who harbor the tyrannical desire to maintain a text-free forum. ssu wrote: But OK, we are not in a Kindergarten here. And of course, only after some time can we from the written answers make out if some writer is ignorant, a child or a crank. Now using common sense the answer is would be that it's a crank: if you can't understand it, it's nonsense. After all, if somebody would have something really new to write about, why would they write here and not in a scientific journal? But I think this is an interesting philosophical question for the administrator/moderator: How can actually one see if a writer a crank, a child or maybe a writer that has a truly a new insight? If there would be guidelines to do it, then why couldn't a program do the things that a moderator does? Now to the generalities. Basically, I think it has quite a bit to do with context - and to my knowledge human beings are, at this point at least, much better at understanding the context in which things take place than are computer programs. Keep in mind that grasping the context is much more difficult on something like a computer forum than in an actual, face to face conversation where all types of verbal and non-verbal cues are given. For example, if you were to look at the automated detection system in place here, you'd see that many of the reported posts are cases in which the context in which the said post was written wasn't at all factored in. We have general rules, but each specific case must be interpreted in light of the context. And again, the context here is extremely limited indeed, based simply upon the written word. But I must say that quite a bit can be conveyed in such a medium, and something like personality can definitely come across in the simple way in which someone expresses their thoughts. Now moderators aren't infallible, and I would honestly feel bad if a pleasant and open-minded philosophical neophyte gathered up the courage to come here and express his or her views with a youthful enthusiasm, and was then subjected to ridicule by the more seasoned posters/aspirants amongst us for being an idiot, an ignoramus, or whatever. For the more fragile of us something like this may very well squash the desire to explore the newfound interest[s] in more depth - maybe not for philosophy itself, but at least for presenting their views in a public forum, and I think this would be a shame for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here. Only the biggest asshole, a complete megalomaniac, would find some sort of pathetic pleasure in attempting to stymie the curiosity and enthusiasm of someone new to philosophy who's feeling the excitement that can occasionally accompany its introduction. All of that being said, and getting back to the specific case of shygirl once again, I don't feel sorry for her in the least. In fact, from the posts that I read, it appears as though a bit of ridicule could be beneficial to her when viewed in the long-run. I know this probably sounds very mean-spirited, but again, she showed an almost complete lack of effort [by the way, it appeared to be a purposeful lack of effort, an almost a prideful lack of effort] combined with an even more complete lack of humility, sincerity and respect. In all probability she came here as some sort of stupid joke, and while I wouldn't want this place to be a haven for pompous, boring know-it-alls, I also wouldn't want it to be frequented by insolent little brats, especially those who are too lazy to write in complete sentences. Anyhow, I've rambled on too much already. To recapitulate, I think a moderator's attempt to distinguish between the child, the crackpot, the crank, the idiot, etc., comes down to his or her ability to intuitively grasp context and then follow it up with a decision based upon that understanding, however biased and subjective it may be. There's no foolproof method of determining the level of effort and/or the sincerity of a poster, but this is the best that we can do. Ignorance, understood as a lack of knowledge concerning a particular issue, should not be - and is not as far as I know - penalized; it should instead be tactfully pointed out with encouragement to continue learning. Oh well, maybe some of the other, more active moderators will have some additional thoughts on this issue - I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were contrary to my own. I think I may be much more of a "softy" than some of them, perhaps more tolerant of transgressions. And finally, I could be wrong but I'd like to think that the decision to weed out "problem" posters, to ban or reprimand them, has almost nothing to do with the pretensions of a moderator's ego and almost everything to do with the modest and reasonable desire to maintain a decent level of dialogue at PF for topics worthy of the venerable name of philosophy. I'm no genius, nor am I an "expert" in the field, so I stress the word "decent" here. Again, a bit of effort and some sincerity - I don't think that's too much to ask, and I'd be really surprised if someone exhibited these traits and was still banned. Shygirl conspicuously exhibited neither, and was tossed once her act became tiresome, and it became tiresome very quickly.

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 08/10/07 - 04:23 AM:	#19
In fact it is usually easy to discern the child, madman, the troll the crankpot and what have you. We had our share of madmen. They eventually give themselves away because they are mad. If they wouldn't give themselves away they wouldn't be mad. As to shygirl, this is a community with rules. Maybe noy set in stone, but like any community we have a sense of who our members are and who are not. If you behave antithetical to the community and immediately so, than it kicks you out. Moderators are just a way of making that more efficient. They are people that have shown they fit in nicely here and are granted to the power by Paul to either delete posts, move threads or ban members if you are an admin. Usually it is quite easy to see if someone is a child willing to learn something or just a bad tempered brat, i.e. shygirl. Posters who are knowledgeable have been banned from here strictly for community reasons. I remember Void1 for instance, but also wanderer. (I myself was in Germany at the time, but know how this happened and wasn't a mod when Wanderer was banned) A true genius which we might have banned could have been, but there will not be many. Still that is always a problem. I think that if someone would pick up Heidegger's Satz vom Grund and start posting an excerpt, he/she might get banned. But usually many people with a real original idea is rare. Still it can happen and many posters here are worthwile intellectuals or academics. I wouldn't be surprised if posters 'form' their ideas here and later on post them more refindly in an academic journal. regards, Tobi
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/14/07 - 06:16 PM:	#20
Shygirl wrote: Are you guys smart or wannabes? Smart. you waste your time here fueding over if you type propperly or not... which leads me to think... At least we can easily understand what each other is saying. 1. ur old and cranky Nope. 2. ur a conservative and never texted b 4 Imperialist, actually. And I've been on other forums. 3. u make urself feel better by pretending ur smart Compared to your typing, I can safely say I'm smarter than you. 4. u dont get enuf attention in rlf.. kids dont visit u n e mor.. wonder y... Sorry, I can't understand what you're typing. 5. ur a wannabe A wannabe what? Unless you are refering to that Spice Girl song... if any of these applies to you Yes? we can safely say... We? So your profile is made up of more than one individual? your a loser. Oh, boo hoo! I'm so sad right now. my advice to you......... Is? kill yourself Why? Life's good! it will help us all trust me.. Trust you? I don't trust anybody with your levall ov tiping scilz Darn it, now shez infekted me tu...ahhhh!!! i now hav thu inteligens ov a tu yer uld omg wtf brb lol bbq
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 08/17/07 - 01:34 AM:	#21
funny, Mr.Anonymous.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/17/07 - 01:31 PM:	#22
Thank u, Caldwell, i apreshiate it veri mutch.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 364

Posted 10/03/07 - 09:23 PM:	#23
I realize this is an old post, but I do have a point to address. The OP obviously deserved banning, that I dare not question. However what is the criterion regarding ESL(English as a Second Language) posters? I understand the need for grammatical clarity regarding philosophy, however some ESL posters who are arguably intelligent will get their posts deleted due to bad grammar, even though it is decently understandable. I myself have had many of my posts deleted for "Illiteracy", because I didn't capitalize correctly I think. That I can fix, and it's just because I'm too used to typing casually when debating on forums. However if it's not because of that, then I don't really know why they were deleted. English IS my second language, and perhaps my English isn't all that perfect. Should I really be punished for it? By the way I'm not trying to whine, please don't unleash your wrath almighty moderator.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 10/03/07 - 09:43 PM:	#24
Whether english is a first or fifth language is irrelevant. We aren't in the business of punishing anyone or evaluating people to give them what they deserve. How you may feel about our editorial decisions is irrelevant to the decisions. It's the same as submitting to a publishing company -- the publisher will make a decision on whether to accept or reject a submission based on how well the publisher feels the submission satisfies the desires of the target audience of readers. If your posts are difficult to read or don't follow the basic rules of the language they'll be removed. Capitalization and punctuation have been two of your problems. Writing one line per sentence as above is another, though less important, which also hinders readers.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 364

Posted 10/03/07 - 09:59 PM:	#25
Understood. That bit of clarification actually made me feel better.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.