Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2021 at 3:16 PM, ThatGuy said:

With this argument, whatever Q is, it can be said to be NOT arbitrary, because there is the actual phenomenon of it, and despite what we can't see directly, we can observe and infer from world events that something is not right/off, things that correspond to Q claims. 

Well said. Have you ever noticed something Q said that turned out not to be true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kanga

Another reason to look at the goings on around the Q Continuum is to understand the psychology of others, since we do, after all, live in a society where both the leadership and voters have an impact

A big difference between elitists doing crud in other countries and their doing it here is the Americans (the real ones) of whom there are still an abundant number in this country's populace.  America

Posted Images

On 1/25/2021 at 2:41 PM, ThatGuy said:

But this is essentially a strawman argument. It wasn't "Q" who urged people to come to the Capitol,

I was thinking about Q or other internet sources being the basis for anyone’s reasoning, sense of rightness, or emotions. I can't see Ayn Rand quoting Q though she might read him/her/it for ideas.

I previously wrote after reading a book about Objectivism: Think about the essentials for conscious beings like ourselves. Food and shelter are primaries, as is a *happy* social existence, but we must rely on *stored information* to improve our stocks of food, shelter, and government. After personal needs are fulfilled and after freedom is secured homo sapiens needs to keep acquiring knowledge. And we need a full-proof way to deposit and save knowledge. It is essential that knowledge be in an accessible or readable form if there is a catastrophe. If only primitive humans are left after a comet strike they need a way to rebuild. Where is our “Library of Alexandria?” Electronic devices like computers may be useless after a catastrophe, but books written like Rosetta Stones, scattered across the globe could bring humans back to our level much quicker. Peter

Notes. Harry Binswanger explains concepts from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, much better than in the original. If I were to recommend either ITOE or “How We Know,” to a student of Objectivism, I would first go with Harry Binswanger’s book.

Some examples? Pg. 31, footnote no. 8: Imagined content is usually compared to perceptual content, but it would seem to be more closely related to the content of memory. Imagining an absent friend’s face seems to have just the same inner quality or “feel” as remembering it, which is in line with the point that imagination is the ability to rearrange *stored* perceptual data. 

page 38: In general, animals have to move to get food; consciousness enables them to locate their food. It also enables them to avoid being eaten, but food is the fundamental: life is not fundamentally the avoidance of death but the gaining of the materials for self-sustenance. Consciousness does also enable animals to obtain other goals; e.g., to find mates for reproduction, but getting food is the fundamental.

In the preface Harry writes: Mankind has existed for 400,000 years but 395,000 of those years were consumed by the Stone Age. The factor that freed men from endless toil and early death, the root cause of the elevated level of existence we now take for granted, is one precious value: *knowledge.* The painfully acquired knowledge of how to master nature, how to organize social existence, and how to understand himself is what enabled man to rise from the cave to the skyscraper, from warring clans to a global economy, from an average lifespan of less than 30 years to one approaching 80. end quotes

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

Well said. Have you ever noticed something Q said that turned out not to be true?

Hard to say because of the cryptic, coded nature of most of it, and the complicating matter of "military disinformation."  For example of coded language, people thought "11.3" was referring to a date as a marker, and were thinking about the election. Now, it seems that was referring to the DoD military manual. As for disinformation, some things were put out knowing that their were leaks in Trump's cabinet, etc, so some things were purportedly said to see how they would act and to flush them out.

(Then there's that pesky exhortation to "trust the plan." Knowing a little bit about military history, that bothered me somewhat, especially when I think about D-Day. There was a plan 3 years in the making by the higher-ups that almost went to pot upon execution, if not for the improvisations of the lower level "boots on the ground." That's why I never "trusted the plan", strictly speaking, knowing that Marines have the saying "Marines don't plan; they improvise.")

So, then, for those reason, I wasn't so concerned with the "predictive" nature of Q regarding specifics, knowing that plans change as the situation dictates. But with THAT said, I DO take issue with the "predictions" of those decoding what Q is saying, and MANY of those predictions have not panned out. (And that brings up the warning from Q that there were to be "no outside comms").

But to your question, the primary value of Q is not to be an oracle, but to get people to see the things that were going on both out in front and behind the scenes, and to get them talking about the important topics that people need to know about. For example, the origins of the virus (China), the subversion of the judicial system, the complicity of the mainstream media, the sham impeachment, the shenanigans of Judge Sullivan in the General Flynn case, the swampy deep state nature of both the democrat AND republicans. There are many more. 

Perhaps the biggest Q talking point from early on that rang true: "This is NOT another four-year election." Can anyone deny THAT? (BTW, Q did also say that the POTUS account would be suspended by Twitter some years ago...and that did happen, along with the continued use of Antifa.)

But on the "great awakening" front, Q has done remarkably well, as things that were kept in the dark ARE out in the light, now. Especially the revelation of just how deep the communist "infiltration instead of invasion" operation has been implemented into our institutions.

The most important warning/tactic of Q, for better or worse, and this is beyond a prediction: "Sometimes you can't tell the people; you have to SHOW them." Well, for how long did Rand try to "tell the people" about the dangers of communism/socialism/statism? Talking about prophecies, Rand wrote ATLAS SHRUGGED in the hopes that she would NOT be a prophet. And yet, did they listen to her? People scoffed, then, and even through the Obama years, even when people started to say "this is like something out of ATLAS SHRUGGED". Still, it wasn't enough to "wake" them up.  Well, now, people are SEEING it first-hand, and, well...it's visceral, now. It's REAL.

(Just an aside: Since we're invoking Rand's possible thoughts on Q...she did create her own version of "Q" in ATLAS, including a Trump-like Francisco D'Anconio, who was working to destroy the swamp from inside, while secretly recruiting people to "the strike" by dropping cryptic messages and speeches here and there...not to mention the clandestine militaristic operations of Ragnar Danneskjold...and Galt's radio speech is reminiscent to the claim that there will be an "Emergency Broadcast System" announcement when all is ready to come out. But then, maybe she was a Soviet plant,  part of "Operation Trust", no? 😉 )

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Peter said:

I was thinking about Q or other internet sources being the basis for anyone’s reasoning, sense of rightness, or emotions. I can't see Ayn Rand quoting Q though she might read him/her/it for ideas.

Have you read her notes in THE JOURNALS OF AYN RAND for her research into the Manhattan Project for her proposed film project TOP SECRET? If she were alive today, I'd bet her perception of Q would be heavily influenced by that, as she was very aware of the coded military communications surrounding that. I may need to dig that out and reread, now. She even interviewed Oppenheimer for it, along with generals and assorted others.  And her testimony on HUAC, and her article "To All Innocent Fifth Columnists" indicates that she knew that the communists were "infiltrating from within", so I think she would have been VERY sympathetic to that aspect of Q, to say the least. (I dare say that her proposed "Screen Guide For Americans" could be taken as a "proto-Q" attempt to counter Soviet propaganda with her own attempt  at a  "great awakening", by using core storiesto "frame the narrative", as MSK has explained.

Most importantly, I think she would find some value in the dual methods of military intervention to fight off communist infiltration along her with own preferred idea that in order to change the culture and the country, one has to educate and change the ideas, which Q is also doing.  (And note that this army of "digital soldiers", and idea also promoted by General Flynn, is a VOLUNTEER army...)

Though I have to also mention that years later, she called  the "military industrial complex" at her West Point speech "a myth, or worse", even after Eisenhower's speech on it. But still, if we're to invoke the ghost of Rand here, "Top Secret" is the way to go.

(Here's a snippet indicating how she was treating skepticism in the wake of military secrets):

 

"John X will serve as a legitimate connecting link between the laboratory, the living conditions, and the 'secrecy' aspects of the story. He is both a participant and an observer—and the fact that he is a skeptical, slightly hostile observer will help to give conflict, drama and meaning to the incidents."

Ayn Rand; Leonard Peikoff; David Harriman. Journals of Ayn Rand (Kindle Locations 6649-6651). Plume.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

But to your question, the primary value of Q is not to be an oracle, but to get people to see the things that were going on both out in front and behind the scenes, and to get them talking about the important topics that people need to know about.

I was once again thinking about accepting an internet source or even someone you trust like ThatGuy here on Objectivist Living (that is not a textbook or a trusted news source) as infallible or as a method of validating your own thoughts . .  . and then arguing a point as if Q or anyone else is the Gospel. I am not looking for ANY arguments but take a look at the following from Atlantis. I did not properly credit the following correctly in my archives, but it is either Roger Bissell or George H. Smith who wrote back in this back in 2001 and it is informative thinking. Peter

 . . . . I read Rand as saying that the concept "fact" is used to underscore that one ~could~ have made a mistake, or told a lie, or hallucinated, but one ~didn't~, that what one is talking about ~really does exist~. As Prof. B said, and Rand concurred: "fact" designates existents. This indicates to me that Rand is using "fact" not as an objective concept, but as an intrinsic concept. (Perhaps it would be better to say: not as an epistemological concept, but as a metaphysical concept?)

There is a distinction here which may seem subtle, but which makes all the difference in the world between the objective and the intrinsic. "Fact" does ~not~ describe "an aspect of what is out there ~in relation to~ our cognitive processes." It describes an aspect of what is out there that we ~happen to have related to~ with a cognitive process. In other words, "fact" does ~not~ designate existents ~as grasped by~ our form of consciousness, but existents ~that happen to have been grasped by~ our form of consciousness.

This interpretation is further bolstered by another comment by Rand: AR: And it [i.e., the concept "fact"] serves another function: it delimits the concept "existence" or "reality." For instance, you may have noticed I often use in writing the expression "facts of reality." What have I added to the term "reality" by saying "facts"? I have narrowed it. I have said: whichever aspects, events, or existents you HAPPEN TO KNOW, these are the facts of reality--meaning these are the things which actually exist. So it is like concretizing a very wide abstraction, such as "reality," BUT IT ISN'T ADDING ANY NEW CONTENT. [p. 243, emphasis added]

This is very telling. Rand is saying that "fact" designates the subcategory of "things that exist" (i.e., of "existence" or "reality") that a person "happen[s] to know." She says it underscores their being "things which actually exist," but doesn't add any new content. It does not designate anything about the inner workings of the relationship between the things that exist and the consciousness that grasps them.

Thus, it appears that "fact" does not meet the criterion for being an "objective" concept. Instead, it seems to be just as "intrinsic" (or metaphysical?) a concept as "existence" and "reality."

To answer one likely objection (via "the Randian Question"): the concept "fact" does indeed ~arise~ because of the fact that our form of awareness is both fallible and limited. But it does not ~refer~ to that fact. It refers to ~things that exist.~ I read Rand as saying that the concept "fact" is used to underscore that one ~could~ have made a mistake, or told a lie, or hallucinated, but one ~didn't~, that what one is talking about ~really does exist~. As Prof. B said, and Rand concurred: "fact" designates existents. This indicates to me that Rand is using "fact" not as an objective concept, but as an intrinsic concept. (Perhaps it would be better to say: not as an epistemological concept, but as a metaphysical concept?)

There is a distinction here which may seem subtle, but which makes all the difference in the world between the objective and the intrinsic. "Fact" does ~not~ describe "an aspect of what is out there ~in relation to~ our cognitive processes." It describes an aspect of what is out there that we ~happen to have related to~ with a cognitive process. In other words, "fact" does ~not~ designate existents ~as grasped by~ our form of consciousness, but existents ~that happen to have been grasped by~ our form of consciousness.

This interpretation is further bolstered by another comment by Rand:

AR: And it [i.e., the concept "fact"] serves another function: it delimits the concept "existence" or "reality." For instance, you may have noticed I often use in writing the expression "facts of reality." What have I added to the term "reality" by saying "facts"? I have narrowed it. I have said: whichever aspects, events, or existents you HAPPEN TO KNOW, these are the facts of reality--meaning these are the things which actually exist.

So it is like concretizing a very wide abstraction, such as "reality," BUT IT ISN'T ADDING ANY NEW CONTENT. [p. 243, emphasis added]

This is very telling. Rand is saying that "fact" designates the subcategory of "things that exist" (i.e., of "existence" or "reality") that a person "happen[s] to know." She says it underscores their being "things which actually exist," but doesn't add any new content. It does not designate anything about the inner workings of the relationship between the things that exist and the consciousness that grasps them.

Thus, it appears that "fact" does not meet the criterion for being an "objective" concept. Instead, it seems to be just as "intrinsic" (or metaphysical?) a concept as "existence" and "reality."

To answer one likely objection (via "the Randian Question"): the concept "fact" does indeed ~arise~ because of the fact that our form of awareness is both fallible and limited. But it does not ~refer~ to that fact. It refers to ~things that exist.~

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Peter said:

I was once again thinking about accepting an internet source or even someone you trust like ThatGuy here on Objectivist Living (that is not a textbook or a trusted news source) as infallible or as a method of validating your own thoughts . .  . and then arguing a point as if Q or anyone else is the Gospel.

I personally never said to take Q as gospel (and I've never asked anyone to take my presentations as such, either, so we don't even need to go there) and neither did Q (unless you count "Trust the Plan", but that still doesn't mean take it as gospel, or else it would have urged people to do their own research* ), which instead told people to research these bigger things themselves. (And again, I did say I take issue with anons who are bold enough to make predictions in the name of Q, who, AGAIN, was warned about that, as well.)

(* I understand the concern, if only because the same accusation was thrown at Rand/Objectivists, that people take her word as "gospel", despite her stated objections to dogma, "Objectivist or otherwise...")

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peter said:

was once again thinking about accepting an internet source or even someone you trust like ThatGuy here on Objectivist Living (that is not a textbook or a trusted news source) as infallible or as a method of validating your own thoughts . .  . and then arguing a point as if Q or anyone else is the Gospel.

For those who want to take "Q" or anonymous internet sources as "gospel", good luck. There will always be such people, even in Objectivist circles. That's its own issue. But it's not the Q issue.

Actually, for those with a critical mind, it's in Q's defense that it IS anonymous, so it forces people to not look at the messenger, but the message. It doesn't matter who it is, as much as what it's saying. And that works better to disseminate ideas to be anonymous, because then there's no one person to be deified. (Look at the problems associated with Objectivism because of the personality of Ayn Rand, people call us "cultists", the "Cult of Ayn Rand", "Goddess of the Right", etc. , or they focus on her personal shortcomings to attack the message and the messengers and to discredit the philosophy.)

And again, as I pointed out, Q has a historical precedent in the anonymous writings of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who spread their arguments to the public under names like "Cato" and "Publius."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

I did not properly credit the following correctly in my archives, but it is either Roger Bissell or George H. Smith who wrote back in this back in 2001 and it is informative thinking. Peter

It's by Roger:  1.  the style of argument;  2. (and immediately identifying) the (over)use of ~~s for emphasis.  Roger was the only one among the prominent contributors who used ~~s.  The rest of us used **s or _ _s.

Toward the end you start repeating the quote.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

Actually, for those with a critical mind, it's in Q's defense that it IS anonymous, so it forces people to not look at the messenger, but the message. It doesn't matter who it is, as much as what it's saying. And that works better to disseminate ideas to be anonymous, because then there's no one person to be deified. (Look at the problems associated with Objectivism because of the personality of Ayn Rand, people call us "cultists", the "Cult of Ayn Rand", "Goddess of the Right", etc. , or they focus on her personal shortcomings to attack the message and the messengers and to discredit the philosophy.)

That's an interesting contrast between Q and Rand.  Attacks on Objectivism have so often not addressed the ideas as such but instead gone after Rand the person.  Q doesn’t provide any "person" to be attacked.

 

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

(Here's a snippet [from "Top Secret"] indicating how she was treating skepticism in the wake of military secrets):
 

"John X will serve as a legitimate connecting link between the laboratory, the living conditions, and the 'secrecy' aspects of the story. He is both a participant and an observer—and the fact that he is a skeptical, slightly hostile observer will help to give conflict, drama and meaning to the incidents."

Ayn Rand; Leonard Peikoff; David Harriman. Journals of Ayn Rand (Kindle Locations 6649-6651). Plume.

I don’t remember if I've noticed before that the character’s first name is "John."

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 10:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

in the most recent Michigan Senate hearings where Melissa Carone testified.

This time, they covered the salacious pictures and everything else. Note that she did not deny or excuse the the salacious pictures of her youth except to say, and I quote, "Everyone was 18 once." :) 

Then she mentioned none of that had anything to do with her testimony or the lies of John Poulos, the CEO of Dominion Voting Services. And man, did she cover a lot of lies by this scumbag--provable lies. She even showed the manual of the Dominion machines on camera showing how to work the internet connection, which Poulos said under oath did not exist.

. . .

The bad guys have tried to railroad this young lady and smear her, but it ain't working.

There's a little news on this front.

Dominion Whistleblower Mellissa Carone Announces Run For MI State Rep…Will Focus On Election Integrity
 

Quote

Dominion whistleblower Mellissa Carone has announced her intention to run for State Rep in Michigan’s 46th District. Carone hopes to replace conservative MI State Rep. John Reilly, who defeated his Democrat opponent in 2020 with 62% of the vote. Reilly is a popular conservative who is unable to run for office again because of term limitations.

Carone told us that if she is elected in 2022, her number one priority will be election integrity. The fearless whistleblower who’s been threatened with a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems says her goal will be to make sure Dominion voting machines are removed from all polling locations in Michigan. She believes voters need to go back to hand-counted paper ballots. Mellissa would also like to see mail-in-voting eliminated. Carone said, ” I believe elections in Michigan have been unfair for a while.” Carone strongly believes that voter ID needs to be enforced for all voters in Michigan.

. . .

The Trump-supporting Republican says that she plans to be getting some huge endorsements from well-known conservatives soon. Instead of running away from the media that tried to destroy her, Carone runs toward them—full-steam ahead.

Feisty and pissed.

Those are great qualities for the office she is running for under the values she holds.

I bet she gets there, too.

I will be applauding her all the way.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out this video. Talking about how the government has sold us out to other countries with foreign aid instead of working for the taxpayers.
Does this sound like someone who's been "pacified" by a Russian psy-op?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

And again, as I pointed out, Q has a historical precedent in the anonymous writings of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who spread their arguments to the public under names like "Cato" and "Publius."

Thanks. I never connected those historical similarities.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Toward the end you start repeating the quote.

Thank you Ellen. I wish I had always simply copied the whole post. But back then I cut and pasted what I thought was interesting or germane to another discussion.  Around the same time I saw letters from "Roark" and of course that was Roger's pseudonym.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if anyone here has caught up with the Gamestop Hedgefun short-selling on Wall Street story (it's kinda like the Modanock Valley scheme from THE FOUNTAINHEAD, or the scheme from THE PRODUCERS), but it's kinda of a big deal. I don't know how to explain it fully, as it's happening so fast, but something happened where trading was shut down to prevent a shortselling scheme from falling through, and  it's got people from across the aisle PISSED at Wall Street hedge fund brokers.
 

 

“People don’t have to like the their rulers. But once a ruler is hated, people will start risking harm to their own good fortunes, just to fuck with them.

“If you take away people’s hops for the future and then double down by taking away any joy which can be had in the present moment, their only source of dopamine becomes actively fucking with you.”


https://gab.com/Miles/posts/105630683164809695

Link to post
Share on other sites

More fallout from the Gamestop Hedgefund scandal...

"40% of those investing themselves into the #Gamestop movement are now experiencing for the first time what it's like to be called racist, have their platforms shut down and their voices silenced. This is literally a game-changer. Talk about a Great Awakening."

https://gab.com/MajorPatriot/posts/105634599739900010

"To be clear, the problem isn't so much that THEY HALTED TRADING.
It's that these brokers HALTED BUYING ONLY FOR RETAIL INVESTORS!

"You can still SELL and drive down the price for the hedge funds of these short sell stocks if you want. Sure that's "volatility", just "volatility that favors big money"!!

"THEN, to really drive home just how corrupt America has become... The Biden admin REQUIRED brokers allow "people" (ie the hedge funds) to be able to buy stock if it is to close out short positions!!!"

https://gab.com/DocLance/posts/105634572016534812


This even has Ted Cruz agreeing with Alexandria "Occasional Cortex"...strange bedfellows, indeed...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another "odd-couple" re Wall Street: Steve Bannon and Rashida Tlaib?

"Polar opposites of the political spectrum are now truly occupying common ground. When Steve Bannon and Rashida Tlaib are uttering the exact same sentiment, you know this is The Establishment Cartel's worst nightmare: "

https://gab.com/MajorPatriot/posts/105634660586277094

 


(I'm not seeing what Bannon said about it, just the claim that he's in agreement...but maybe it's something to do with this, from 1/20?):

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/robinhood-day-traders-are-squeezing-the-hedge-funds-heres-why-it-may-continue-11611142203

Link to post
Share on other sites

More fallout: BIPARTISAN support for congressional investigation into Robinhood

"BREAKING: a class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinhood in the southern district of New York, as bipartisan support grows for a congressional investigation into why they shut down GameStop trading"

https://nationalfile.com/breaking-class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-robinhood-as-bipartisan-support-grows-for-congressional-investigation/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another Biden connection to all this, re his Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen:

“Joe Biden’s Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has made over $7 million from speaking at Wall Street firms including Citadel- which has invested billions of dollars in the primary hedge fund now suffering as a result of the GameStop stock surge."

 


...

[Elizabeth Warren] : “For years, the same hedge funds, private equity firms, and wealthy investors dismayed by the GameStop trades have treated the stock market like their own personal casino while everyone else pays the price,” Warren said. “It’s long past time for the SEC and other financial regulators to wake up and do their jobs -- and with a new administration and Democrats running Congress, I intend to make sure they do.”

" Warren’s comments came after White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Biden’s economic team were watching stock market activity around GameStop and other heavily shorted companies."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-monitoring-gamestop-market-activity-183420988.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Looks like the Cruz/Cortex honeymoon is over, lol...but still, significant, because whatever her beef is with Cruz, her followup tweet indicates she's willing to work with other GOP members on this matter...)
 

Ted Cruz Reaches a Hand Across the Aisle to Agree with Ocasio-Cortez on Populist Investor Uprising – AOC Bites Off His Head, Accuses Him of Attempted Murder, Tells Him to Resign

By Jim Hoft
Published January 28, 2021 at 1:11pm
781 Comments



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/wow-ted-cruz-reaches-hand-across-aisle-agree-ocasio-cortez-populist-investor-uprising-aoc-bites-off-head-accuses-attempted-murder-tells-resign/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw - A note on Mike Adams.

Yesterday he said that he is purposely not reading or viewing what other online commentators are saying about the military, election fraud, and so on. He said he is keeping to the news and to his own private sources and basing his reports on those inputs.

The reason is that he does not want the current post-inauguration phase to be a circle of pundits inadvertently influencing each other. So he is purposely restricting his own access to make sure he gives you the world as he sees it and report what his own sources are saying. Sometimes this will line up with others and sometimes it will conflict.

He emphasized that there are many fine people posting about the same topics he does and he thinks everyone should read and watch them. So this measure is not a diss on them. 

To me, this is a strong indication of credibility.

When I post more from him, this will be the context.

Michael

Link to post
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