Atlas Shrugged Movie - June Production


Recommended Posts

Jeff apparently misunderstands the common sense point I was making:

I understood your stupid point quite clearly, Phil. But you can't see that because you recognize no distinction between evaluating or judging a performance by an actor and grunting one's approval or disapproval of that performance. To you, as to your beloved "Mr. Average Moviegoer," there is no distinction between these two things.

1. There are many more viewers of a major Hollywood movie than there are readers of the book it is based on...and certainly they won't have read the screenplay.

2. Since they will not refer to the book, the movie has to stand alone as a work of art and the actors' performances have to stand alone.

It has to do no such thing. These viewers you're so concerned about know and care nothing about art. They want to find out one thing and one thing only about any movie - does it entertain them? They grunt their approval or disapproval. End of story.

3. The audience must be able to appreciate the performances and the story as presented in the movie. That's what I mean by stand alone or self-contained. (And I think that phrase was taken out of context; it's pretty clear, I think, in my original post in which I was criticizing the woodenness of Viggo Mortensen in the movie and Jeff claimed you had to see the movie in the context of the book.)

4. It's valid to discuss whether a movie was true to the book but even if the movie departs from the book, one can evaluate its success (and that of its actors) as separable phenomena.

One can "evaluate" the actors' performances only if one knows either (1) the words they were given to speak or (2) the general sort of character they were expected to portray. If one knows neither of these things, all one knows is that one liked or didn't like the performance. Why do I have to keep repeating this elementary point as though it were rocket science?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Bias in the Liberal Press?? News Flash: Jeff, Based on his Allegedly Vast Experience Says No Way! Can't Possibly Be!!

> If you knew those people and asked them their thinking, they'd tell you the NYT has no editorial bias

So what? Do you believe everything you're told?

> If you had ever worked with the kind of people I'm talking about, the people who work on large daily newspapers...I worked for two of them.

I don't know why you are not getting a reasonably simple point. Here it is again:

Working for newspapers A and B which were not biased does not enable you to say that newspaper C is not biased or that all 'large, daily' newspapers are unbiased. Working with certain types of people that newspaper A finds congenial does not mean you can talk about -all- the people who work for different newspapers. I worked with "computer people" and managers at Hewlett-Packard. I wouldn't be naive enough to infer from that what "computer people" and managers were like in the corporate culture of IBM in every respect. If you were on the staff of better or less biased newspapers, that would not enable you to infer what the corporate culture was like at another newspaper, any more than working at one company enables you to know the rules, the pressures, the approaches at another. And no, having worked at two newspapers, doing what and for how long?, does -not- make you an expert on the bias or lack of it everywhere.

Almost every Objectivist or libertarian knows the New York Times is biased. Amazing to find someone who is so naive as not to know this. Unbelievable! (I even gave you some illustrative concrete examples to jog your memory, which you ignored: Never let concrete cases stand in the way, I guess.)

2. Don't Give Me No Stinkin' Rules

> The Elements of Style is..absurdly overrated...

> it proceeds on the assumption that there is only one legitimate or effective way to write and that way is the way E.B. White wrote.

No it doesn't. Have you actually understood the book?

More importantly, I wasn't talking about optional personal style. I was giving you basic advice from a reader: lose the verboseness and (unnecessary) slanting; let your argument stand on its own merits.

> If you don't like the way I write, Phil, I encourage you to read somebody else.

Only a man with hubris thinks his writing is perfect and can't possibly benefit from any criticism; the wise man learns even from his adversaries.

> looking in the mirror, preening, and patting myself on the back in smug self-satisfaction because my early decision to read Ayn Rand has left me an expert on everything and I've never had any need to acquire any further knowledge.

This may not be in the Elements of Style but it could be:

--Don't dull the force and clarity of your arguments with bluster and insult.

--Don't exaggerate because you are eager to make a put-down.

,,,,,,,,

We're done here.-->

As much as is possible, I'm pretty much going to ignore the insulting asshole after that last looking in the mirror comment.

You really can't understand anything you read, can you? I never said the NYT wasn't biased. I said the people who work there - the overwhelming majority of them - don't see it as biased themselves. Therefore it is not because they are trying to cooperate in what they know to be the paper's bias that they make the editorial decisions and the photographic decisions they do. Are you actually this dense?

The newspapers I worked for (as an editorial writer and columnist) were both biased. All newspapers are biased. This is inescapable. But the majority of the people who work for them do not see them that way, and they do not make their editorial decisions and their decisions about photographs and other illustrations in an effort to promote a bias they don't themselves see.

It's been a long time since I learned anything about writing from anybody, Phil. And I assure you that you have nothing at all to teach me about it.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Pigero would make a good Toohey, but why would Toohey be cast for a film of Atlas Shrugged?

I just wanted to put it in there so badly I went ahead.

Unfortunately, one thing we know for sure is that Dennis Hopper is out of the running for anything.

Not necessarily. He could play Gary Cooper playing Howard Roark.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Aside: Writing tip for the writing expert: You don't have to overload your language with parody-type words like 'vigorously', 'denouncing' or negative evaluations like 'abuse' or 'tendentiously'. It's more effective if you can bend over backwards to present the view neutrally and still be able then to refute it. Have you learned anything from The Elements of Style? :rolleyes: ]

The principal thing I learned from The Elements of Style is how absurdly overrated it is. It contains some good, commonsensical advice about writing, but it proceeds on the assumption that there is only one legitimate or effective way to write and that way is the way E.B. White wrote. I'm sorry; I don't buy into this. I think White was a pretty good writer, but I certainly wouldn't like the result if he had had his way and everyone now wrote like E.B. White. If you don't like the way I write, Phil, I encourage you to read somebody else.

I recall that Jeff and I had some discussions, maybe even arguments, about The Elements of Style around two decades ago, as we were preparing a seminar on writing that we conducted in Long Beach. I first read the book while I was a sophomore in high school, after an English teacher, who thought I showed some potential as a writer, gave me a copy as a gift. I liked the organization and advice of the book a great deal; it definitely helped me, so it occupies a place in my heart to this day.

But Jeff is right about the book. I would characterize it as a book for beginners. It has sound advice that can help beginning writers, but the advice should not be mistaken for rules. I especially recall the admonition to use the active instead of the passive tense. For a year after I read the book, I religiously attempted to write everything in the active tense, until some of my writing got so strained that I finally got it into my thick head that there is a good reason why the passive tense exists.

In fairness to Strunk and White, I should mention that the tendency to solidify guidelines into rules is a problem that can occur with any book on style.

Lastly, a word of advice to Phil: There are a number of legitimate criticisms that you can make about JR's ideas, but I would steer clear of offering him advice about writing. This is like a little league baseball player offering advice to a major league hitter with a 380 average about how he can improve his game.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Strunk and White, I should mention that the tendency to solidify guidelines into rules is a problem that can occur with any book on style.

Ghs

The difference between a "rule" and a "guideline" is brilliantly explained in the following bit of dialogue from Ghostbusters:

[Dana is possessed]

Dr. Peter Venkman: I make it a rule never to get involved with possessed people.

[Dana starts passionately making out with him]

Dr. Peter Venkman: Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule...

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Aside: Writing tip for the writing expert: You don't have to overload your language with parody-type words like 'vigorously', 'denouncing' or negative evaluations like 'abuse' or 'tendentiously'. It's more effective if you can bend over backwards to present the view neutrally and still be able then to refute it. Have you learned anything from The Elements of Style? :rolleyes: ]

The principal thing I learned from The Elements of Style is how absurdly overrated it is. It contains some good, commonsensical advice about writing, but it proceeds on the assumption that there is only one legitimate or effective way to write and that way is the way E.B. White wrote. I'm sorry; I don't buy into this. I think White was a pretty good writer, but I certainly wouldn't like the result if he had had his way and everyone now wrote like E.B. White. If you don't like the way I write, Phil, I encourage you to read somebody else.

I recall that Jeff and I had some discussions, maybe even arguments, about The Elements of Style around two decades ago, as we were preparing a seminar on writing that we conducted in Long Beach. I first read the book while I was a sophomore in high school, after an English teacher, who thought I showed some potential as a writer, gave me a copy as a gift. I liked the organization and advice of the book a great deal; it definitely helped me, so it occupies a place in my heart to this day.

But Jeff is right about the book. I would characterize it as a book for beginners. It has sound advice that can help beginning writers, but the advice should not be mistaken for rules. I especially recall the admonition to use the active instead of the passive tense. For a year after I read the book, I religiously attempted to write everything in the active tense, until some of my writing got so strained that I finally got it into my thick head that there is a good reason why the passive tense exists.

In fairness to Strunk and White, I should mention that the tendency to solidify guidelines into rules is a problem that can occur with any book on style.

Lastly, a word of advice to Phil: There are a number of legitimate criticisms that you can make about JR's ideas, but I would steer clear of offering him advice about writing. This is like a little league baseball player offering advice to a major league hitter with a 380 average about how he can improve his game.

Ghs

Of course, George means the active and passive "voice," not "tense."

Thanks for your last paragraph, George.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good and great and especially readable writing is reflective of how and what the writer thinks and his or her personality. One doesn't pull this out of a text. Those texts are written for hacks. Hack writing has its place; it's all over the place. I write a lot of it myself on the Internet. When I stretch myself, however, I can do some pretty decent stuff. Consider the sheer genius of a mere title, J'accuse, which shook a government to its core, so powerful the English language just sucked it in and kept it as such for its own. One reason English is the greatest language isn't that it's, what?, one-third French, but that it will take in everything it wants and needs and keep it. There is no snotty French purity to English. Go away for two hundred years and come back: French will only exist in books, old audio and in English itself.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. He could play Gary Cooper playing Howard Roark.

Good point. And hopefully, they won't trot him out for a "Weekend With Bernie" (although, if any cadaver could pull it off with style, Hopper might be that guy).

"The Elements of Style." When you are starting out, a very fast, digestible way to get your groove on. Later--nice to look at when you are making decisions about exactly how you are going to break a "rule." It occupies a warm place in my heart as well. I usually keep one around just to have it. I loaned my current copy to this Honduras guy I know who is trying to improve his writing. It seems like I buy them to give away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> ["The Elements of Style"] has sound advice that can help beginning writers, but the advice should not be mistaken for rules. I especially recall the admonition to use the active instead of the passive tense. [GHS]

It says right in the book: "This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." And in many other places it makes similar qualifications.

> I would characterize it as a book for beginners.

I would put it somewhat differently. I'd say it's a book that can be used profitably by writers at -any- stage. Even some who have become world-renowned and influential could profit from it.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Openness to Improvement and Criticism

> offering [Jeff] advice about writing..is like a little league baseball player offering advice to a major league hitter with a 380 average about how he can improve his game. [GHS]

So would that mean no one on this board can criticize a poorly written post? No one who hasn't written a book can criticize one? No one who is not in the "major leagues" with Ayn Rand can criticize her words or writing? I very profoundly disagree with the spirit behind all this:

First, it's not valid to say the so-called or alleged 'authority' or 'expert' (or even the very experienced person) is now perfect, has nothing to learn. Especially from others who do have -some- experience. Especially in a field as complex and capable of higher and higher levels of skill as writing.

Second, it's a bit of a stretch to call Jeff a "major league hitter with a 380 average" (and thus above criticism from lesser mortals). If he were appearing on Sunday talk shows, had a syndicated column in the New York Times, or had books appearing on the best-seller lists, or was in demand as a five figures speaker in college campuses all across the country, yes. But he's a "minor league hitter" who isn't in the majors. Doing an audio book of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is not the same as being Henry Hazlitt. Or -writing- as well as Henry Hazlitt.

Note: I am not disparaging Jeff's career. It's a good one. And he was occasionally in some major media about thirty years ago. Among free-market or libertarian thinkers and writers, not everyone is going to be world-famous or as influential as Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or Charles Murray or Murray Rothbard or Henry Hazlitt. And there is no shame or belittlement in that. But, until you can write with the success and influence of those intellectuals, you should always be trying to improve and should not have the hubris and complacent arrogance behind this statement:

"It's been a long time since I learned anything about writing from anybody." [Jeff, Post #52]

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Openness to Improvement and Criticism

> offering [Jeff] advice about writing..is like a little league baseball player offering advice to a major league hitter with a 380 average about how he can improve his game. [GHS]

So would that mean no one on this board can criticize a poorly written post? No one who hasn't written a book can criticize one? No one who is not in the "major leagues" with Ayn Rand can criticize her words or writing? I very profoundly disagree with the spirit behind all this:

First, it's not valid to say the so-called or alleged 'authority' or 'expert' (or even the very experienced person) is now perfect, has nothing to learn. Especially from others who do have -some- experience. Especially in a field as complex and capable of higher and higher levels of skill as writing.

Second, it's a bit of a stretch to call Jeff a "major league hitter with a 380 average" (and thus above criticism from lesser mortals). If he were appearing on Sunday talk shows, had a syndicated column in the New York Times, or had books appearing on the best-seller lists, or was in demand as a five figures speaker in college campuses all across the country, yes. But he's a "minor league hitter" who isn't in the majors. Doing an audio book of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is not the same as being Henry Hazlitt. Or -writing- as well as Henry Hazlitt.

Note: I am not disparaging Jeff's career. It's a good one. And he was occasionally in some major media about thirty years ago. Among free-market or libertarian thinkers and writers, not everyone is going to be world-famous or as influential as Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or Charles Murray or Murray Rothbard or Henry Hazlitt. And there is no shame or belittlement in that. But, until you can write with the success and influence of those intellectuals, you should always be trying to improve and should not have the hubris and complacent arrogance behind this statement:

"It's been a long time since I learned anything about writing from anybody." [Jeff, Post #52]

Allow me to rephrase Phil's argument:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3J2jpwdRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3J2jpwdRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3J2jpwdRI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would that mean no one on this board can criticize a poorly written post?

Yes, please think of it that way. Yes. Begin doing it now. No, no. . . don't worry about the others. Please begin now. Yes, Phil. Just stare at the circle. Yes, it is good. It is right. Yes... You Must Do It.

eye.jpg

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Allow me to rephrase Phil's argument...[video of an angry cat]

Of course, if an argument is valid and you can't really fault the logic of openness to improvement and criticism, you can always dismiss it by saying it's motivated by jealousy or cattiness.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Allow me to rephrase Phil's argument...[video of an angry cat]

Of course, if an argument is valid and you can't really fault the logic of openness to improvement and criticism, you can always dismiss it by saying it's motivated by jealousy or cattiness.

Yes, I could dismiss your remarks in this manner; in fact, I did.

Consider what you wrote here:

"Second, it's a bit of a stretch to call Jeff a "major league hitter with a 380 average" (and thus above criticism from lesser mortals). If he were appearing on Sunday talk shows, had a syndicated column in the New York Times, or had books appearing on the best-seller lists, or was in demand as a five figures speaker in college campuses all across the country, yes. But he's a "minor league hitter" who isn't in the majors. Doing an audio book of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is not the same as being Henry Hazlitt. Or -writing- as well as Henry Hazlitt."

I was speaking of JR's writing skills, especially in comparison to yours. This has nothing to do with whether or not Jeff appears on Sunday talk shows or has published a best seller. Do you really think any of this has anything to do with writing skills? I seriously doubt it; even you couldn't really mean something that absurd. You were striking back like a pissed-off cat.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Phil: "But, until you can write with the success and influence of those intellectuals, you should always be trying to improve. . . "

Phil, this statement -- "You should always be trying to improve" -- is typical of how you too often deal with people on Forums. It's guaranteed to get people's backs up. Do you not see how insufferably patronizing it is? Should one respond, "Gee, Daddy, I didn't know I should always try to improve . I promise to do better in the future." Phil, we are not your children; nor are we enrolled in your classes. And you are much too intelligent and thoughtful to spend so much of your time antagonizing people.

At the risk of sounding patronizing myself -- and if it comes across that way, I apologize -- I see you as now having a choice. You can look for other examples of your attitude --pompous patronizing, all-knowing, teaching to those who do not require or want your lessons, and decide if you want to do something about it -- or you can inundate me with self-serving explanations of how I misunderstood the line I quoted from your post to Jeff. you can go on and on about context, about your past with Jeff, about his last eighteen posts, etc.. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I was speaking of JR's writing skills, especially in comparison to yours. [GHS]

When you use a metaphor about batting averages [major league hitting ratio] it sounds like you are talking about career success or number of publications as a basis for comparison. Not just about writing skills.

If your basis for comparison is that in your opinion Jeff's writing skills are better than mine, my point that that is irrelevant to whether or not I made a valid criticism still stands.

And my points about open-mindedness and always trying for improvement and not making an arrogant nothing further to learn type statement also still stand.

> This has nothing to do with whether or not Jeff appears on Sunday talk shows or has published a best seller.

Yes it quite possibly may: Usually those who are the best writers (Friedman, Rothbard, Sowell, Hazlitt, etc. are good ones) rise to the top, even when they have a pro-freedom ideology which is disliked and reviled by many of those they are trying to get to publish them or syndicate them or read them. I suspect those writers were constantly improving and never said that they hadn't learned anything new in writing for years.

I can't claim to have read enough of Jeff's writing outside of his posts here, but then again I wonder if you can claim to have read enough of mine outside of my posts to -patronizingly- claim I'm a minor-league pitcher compared to him.

,,,,,,

P.S., Unlike Jeff I actually DO WANT TO KNOW when I really screw up in writing (and yes I know about the all caps and wouldn't do that for publication)!!! Allowing for a certain latitude in the fact that posts are not usually polished, final pieces and have a certain lack of editing, I would like to welcome criticisms of my writing. I actually benefit ENORMOUSLY from that kind of constructive criticism. I don't yet consider myself anything like a near-perfect writer.

In that case, I will try to hold my ego aside and listen....other than with regard to personal insults or ad hominems. I might start a new thread: "Writing Criticism Wanted: What Bores You or Seems Poorly Expressed or Unclear". If so I could repost a published article or two,not just informal posts?

(It would be all about writing, not about agreement with the ideas expressed.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JR and BB have demonstrated the highest levels of writing skills on OL. I'd call those skills their casual. My casual is much less. I'd be willing to get into a writing contest with them, but only if I had an inordinate amount of time and, I'm ashamed to say, a spell checker.mellow.gif

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Atlas Shrugged were my movie to produce, one stipulation I'd have is that the prospects read, or have read, the book. I'd plan far enough ahead to allow them time to complete it. Something similar occured with the casting of Legend of the Seeker. Bridgette Regan (playing Kahlan Amnell) stated she had not read the books. She's turned out great, but I wonder if that will be the same for all actors taking important roles in Atlas Shrugged

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your basis for comparision is that in your opinion Jeff's writing skills are better than mine, my point that that is irrelevant to whether or not I made a valid criticism still stands.

Do you really think you told JR anything about writing that he didn't already know? Your comments were an exercise in puerile pedantry, nothing more.

By the way, since you were so helpful as to correct me on the ".380" issue, I gladly return the favor by pointing out that the word is "comparison," not "comparision."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Butt-Kicking for the Goose, Butt-Kicking for the Gander

> Do you really think you told JR anything about writing that he didn't already know?

How would I know how much he already knows about writing? Having gotten someone to publish you is no guarantee of anything. For all I know Jeff claims to vast knowledge are a bit overstated or have holes or gaps as is true of everyone (certainly claiming not to need to know anything more, learn from anyone else about writing raises red flags in my mind!)

More importantly he wasn't -practicing- such knowledge in the statement I took exception to. If you recall, he unfairly 'stacked the deck' using loaded language in his argument against me instead of simply objectively reporting my view and then trying to refute it.

You simply shouldn't do that. Bad writing -and- bad logic. Doesn't matter as much what you know in theory: And when it's directed against me, yes, I certainly am going to call him on it!!

,,,,

The verboseness is minor - in an informal post, you have to allow for infelicities - and I really could have let that go, but he was attacking me for my writing and professional skills in a series of posts saying "Phil knows nothing", "He's writing about areas where he's totally ignorant", I'm an expert and I've written hundreds of articles unlike Phil, so (implicitly) don't you dare criticize.

So it's very appropriate to take him down a peg *on the very same type of issue*.

Here's the principle, George:

You Dish It Out, You Gotta Be Able to Take It.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't Keep Kicking a Sleeping Dog...

I think I waited till about the third or fourth or fifth time across several months of multiple threads (did it start on leadoff post of the Great Literature thread? I don't remember) of Jeff saying 'Phil knows nothing', 'he should keep his mouth shut and not display his total ignorance of literature' --or teaching --or science fiction --or writing --or history --or journalism, until I responded in kind and began to more systematically criticize his knowledge, his logic, his writing, his claims of experience.

...Unless You Want to Lose that Foot.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't Keep Kicking a Sleeping Dog...

I think I waited till about the third or fourth or fifth time across several months of multiple threads (did it start on leadoff post of the Great Literature thread? I don't remember) of Jeff saying 'Phil knows nothing', 'he should keep his mouth shut and not display his total ignorance of literature' --or teaching --or science fiction --or writing --or history --or journalism, until I responded in kind and began to more systematically criticize his knowledge, his logic, his writing, his claims of experience.

...Unless You Want to Lose that Foot.

Actually, it's not true that Phil knows nothing. Phil knows something. But he chooses not to write about anything he knows anything about. He prefers to write about subjects he, at best, knows a little bit about, and when he writes about those subjects he struts around insufferably, trying to pass himself off as more knowledgeable than he actually is.

Another example, just from today: "I am not disparaging Jeff's career. It's a good one. And he was occasionally in some major media about thirty years ago."

Thirty years ago - 1980 - I had appeared in only two publications that would qualify by most people's standards as "major media" - the New York Times (one piece in the Sunday Week in Review section in 1979) and the Los Angeles Times (perhaps a dozen pieces on the op-ed page and in the Sunday Book Review beginning in 1977). My regular appearances in the major media began a bit later and stretched through the '80s and the first half of the '90s. My last appearance in USA Today, for example, was in 1995 - fifteen years ago. Does Phil even bother to check the facts before he blurts out some half-digested, half-remembered garbage? No, of course not. Why should he? He was once on the staff of a humor publication.

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Butt-Kicking for the Goose, Butt-Kicking for the Gander

Why do so many of your posts begin with "headlines" in bold face? Are you afraid we won't understand your message without them? Or are they there for the benefit of the many readers who don't want to miss the gems of wisdom that bounce off your keyboard, but who may not have the time to read your posts in their entirety?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reason that stories have headlines, that books and chapters have titles, that God's in his heaven, that I am the Arbiter Elegantiarum, and that there is a Santa Claus. And to allow you to double your enjoyment by reexperiencing and savoring longer the aftertaste of what was the theme or key point of my wonderful writing.

George, also -everyone- reads my posts in their entirety.

If they know what's good for them.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now