Peter Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Darn. I don't want to stop George from talking so I will put this response here, for now.George wrote:I have read dozens of Peter's screeds against anarchism, and in not one of them did I find anything approaching a serious attempt to deal with the essential philosophical issues that divide libertarian minarchists and anarchists. end quoteMy responses have always been serious, though I like to joke around a bit. The divide, as you call it, is Objectivism. If you wanted to enlighten libertarian minarchists, you would go to Atlantis II or a Libertarian site. If you wanted to be shunned and then condemned you would go to any ARI site like Binswanger’s list. Yet, here you are on Objectivist Living, and as Michael Stuart Kelly has said, you are welcome. So if your agenda is to favorably amend inconsistencies in Objectivism, I would like to hear what you have to say. I always have, but I will always respond. George wrote: Peter is probably the most anti-intellectual "Objectivist" that I have ever encountered -- and I have encountered quite a few. His contempt for philosophical reasoning has manifested itself time and again in a manner that reminds me of James Taggart's opening lines in Atlas Shrugged, with this slight difference: "Don't bother me with philosophical arguments, don't bother me, don't bother me." end quote Nope that doesn’t sound like me at all. Bother me George! I continually ask you to show me your Anarchist model and you don’t have one. Or are you just hiding it in up your sleeve? Or is Philosophical Anarchism impossible? You sound like Ellsworth Monkton Toohey as you undermine Objectivist government. I will change his dialogue slightly:There's the Building of Constitutional Government that should have been yours. There are buildings going up all over the city which are great chances refused and given to incompetent fools. You're walking the streets while they're doing the work that you love but cannot obtain. This city is closed to you. It is I who have done it! Soon I will infiltrate and destroy Objectivist Living! Don't you want to know my motive?End of mixed up quoteDo we want to know your motive, George Hamilton Smith?Sure I do, but Michael Stuart Kelly, aka Howard Roark, does not.George wrote:In all honesty, if I were a Randian minarchist I would be acutely embarrassed by Peter's theatrics. I would fervently hope that he converts to anarchism so he could discredit that position . . . End quote Interestingly enough, Ellsworth, most of the people corresponding with you on OL have an affinity for anarchism, are curious about your motives, or liked ATCAG and are star struck, or so it seems 8 -) So what is the self-professed agenda of a Philosophical Anarchist? To do away with government, which includes Randian Government, which means you wish to do away with Objectivism, as a Political Philosophy. Now what was that other Government you want to do away with? No, don’t tell me. I will remember. Oh, yeah. You Philosophical Anarchists want to do away with The United States of America!In her address to West Point Ayn Rand said:“In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say-not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots-that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.end quote Oh, and atheist that she was she also roared out, “God Bless America!”So, I presume you are an arm chair Anarchist. Yet Philosophical Anarchists are also the street fighters we see shouting Death to America! Death to Capitalism! It’s interesting how the logical conclusion of Anarchism is the destruction of America, yet Street Anarchists refuse to be labeled as traitors, as they spell our country Amerika. In the streets you form mobs to burn or bring down buildings like the Muslim Death To America crowds. You arm-chair anarchists may even disown anarchistic mobs but they ARE your logical conclusion. George has said he is free to revolt at any instant. Anarchists find traitors to THEIR freedom among the founding father’s machinations at the creation of the Constitution. But, patriots who might want to change the Constitution, to better protect individual rights, see you as the traitors who wish to have a hand in the demise of the Constitution and our country. Your rights are protected by soldiers, sailors, and airmen, fighting for the country you want to destroy. Hypocritically, you say America is the best place in the world for you to destroy America.You cannot logically say Anarchism is a device to create a better America if you simultaneously espouse the destruction of America.George wrote:One more thing: If you upset Peter. . . End quote So why are you upsetting me, a screed writing, anti-intellectual grizzly bear? George wrote: . . . he may retaliate by reposting old and irrelevant messages by you that have nothing whatever to do with the topic being discussed, if he thinks these might embarrass or discredit you. This was clearly his intention in reposting that thread from Atlantis on drugs and addiction. End quote Not exactly. I did get a sense of glee by hoisting you onto your own petard, but you are a pied piper and I wanted everyone here to know your true nature. Kids are present, so mind your manners. You continue to advocate drug use, or at least you identify anti- drug laws as your major libertarian concern. You are less concerned about a Fascist President, Climategate, a nuclear Iran, or electing a better President and Congress. No, you are more interested in your RIGHT to a crack pipe, and dope sold at decent prices. George wrote:Nevertheless, incompetence is one thing, while vicious incompetence is quite another. end quote Bud, there is nothing stealth about me. But you always seem to be in stealth mode. Show me your Anarchic model, damn it! Put up or shut up. I think I have been quite competent in raking you over the coals, but vicious? I would say, my response to your name calling was deservedly mean. Semper cogitans fidele,Peter TaylorPS: I printed that portion of Ayn Rand’s address to the graduating class of West Point, in honor of deceased Objectivist and Canadian, Ellen Moore a true defender of freedom and to America’s, Canada’s and Britain’s fallen heroes, who died in defense of liberty and in the liberation of Iraq and now Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Oh, Ellen Moore, now you've done it! Shudder.As I understand the present schematic, Xray is attacking Objectivism at its base and Ghs from the top? I guess they might hook up in the ethics section and have a party amidst the ruins.The only libertarian-anarchist model I'm aware of was depicted in the SF novel "Alongside Night." In the context of the United States today you have to fight for your freedom because our government has become the state. I eschew Utopianism except for thinking material. In the context of what I know the basic political principle should be more and more freedom--move gradually and deliberately toward that--not the theoretical ultimate pure result of that. People need the blessing of nasty government to some extent less they forget how to fight and deal with it and grow mentally flabby respecting their rights. Of course, that's happened anyway and we're moving in the wrong direction. Is a complete economic collapse necessary?--Brantcloset statist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Peter,I like your point that Anarchism also precludes Capitalism. Rightly it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Peter,Okay, you win. You want me to reply to your posts, so I will. First, I strongly recommend that you take your meds before writing posts. Even if the meds don't eliminate your psychotic episodes altogether, they may lessen their severity.Second, I am truly sorry that you have never achieved anything of intellectual value in your life, but you won't help matters by smearing those who have. Envy is an ugly emotion.Third, I was still defending you on Atlantis II long after virtually everyone else had written you off as a troll, a complete fool, or both. I still doubt that you are a troll, and I think it's way too late for you to do anything about being a complete fool, but I would appreciate it if you would do something about your incessant lying. Or at least lie about someone else, for a change. Thanks in advance.Fourth, I was touched by your tribute to Ellen Moore, but don't underrate yourself. Although she had an astonishing ability to misunderstand and misuse Ayn Rand's ideas, she was nowhere in your league.I would like to write more, since I would dearly love to reinforce your illusion that your comments are worth responding to, but I need to work on my plans to destroy America. As for my model for an anarchistic society, I have one -- but the blueprints are top secret and can only be revealed to those who know the secret password. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Peter,I almost forgot to wish you well on your two grand projects, namely, to revise the Constitution and to make it possible for every citizen to vote on every piece of legislation.As a philosopher with his head in the clouds of abstraction, I greatly admire your sense of practicality. Please let me know when the revised Constitution has been ratified. Again, thanks in advance.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 As I understand the present schematic, Xray is attacking Objectivism at its base and Ghs from the top? I guess they might hook up in the ethics section and have a party amidst the ruins.Since Peter has perceptively linked me to the "Death to America" Muslim crowd, I guess I should fess up. I, too, am attempting to undermine Objectivism at its base. My plan is to corrupt Rand's epistemology by writing An Introduction to Islamic Objectivism. Then, after I destroy Objectivism, I can complete my plan to destroy America.I am making this confession because it's only a matter of time until Peter presents the incriminating evidence, namely, this recent post of mine from Atlantis II: ----- Original Message ----- From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@comcast.net>To: "atlantis_II" <atlantis_II@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:23 PMSubject: [atlantis_II] An Introduction to Islamic ObjectivismThe three axioms of Islamic Objectivism are as follows:1) Allah exists. (Praise be to Allah.)2) Allah is conscious of Allah. (Praise be to Allah.)3. Allah is what Allah is. (Praise be to Allah.)We shall continue with our primer later, especially if others contribute. (Praise be to Allah.)GhsWhat can I say? Peter nailed me on this one. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 17, 2010 Author Share Posted February 17, 2010 George wrote:As a philosopher with his head in the clouds of abstraction, I greatly admire your sense of practicality. Please let me know when the revised Constitution has been ratified. Again, thanks in advance.end quoteThe big honcho in local talk radio is Bill Colley. I showed him your response, as a Con Con being nonsensical, back on A2 and he said, judge the proposal after 2010 and 2012."Something wonderful is going to happen." Dave in "2010 a Space Odyssey”Semper cogitans fidele,Peter TaylorNewsmaxTea Party Leaders Meet RNC's Steele Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:48 AMBy: Dan WeilRepublican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and other top Republican officials are meeting with about 50 leaders of various tea party groups today.The participants will discuss ideology and campaign tactics, The Washington Post reports.Some tea party activists view themselves as representatives of the Republican Party’s conservative wing, but others see Republicans as no different than Democrats – part of the hated Washington establishment.The afternoon meeting on Capitol Hill represents the first time that a wide group of tea party leaders have consulted with the top Republican brass.The GOP has been trying to figure out how to include tea party members in its effort to reverse the Democrats’ majorities in Congress during this year’s elections.Karin Hoffman, founder of DC Works For Us, a tea party group in South Florida, told The Post she came up with the meeting idea and presented it to Steele last month.About 30 tea party groups around the country will be represented, and participants are all paying their own way to attend.Some tea party heavies won’t be there because they can’t afford the travel, and some don’t want to engage the Republican establishment.Hoffman’s aim is to create a line of discussion with Republican leaders, but she says the tea party groups have no intention of simply joining the GOP."From the get-go, the grass-roots movement emerged from people desiring to be heard and not feeling like their voices are being heard in Washington," she said. The Republican Party has to tread carefully. Leaders of tea party movements in the inland Northwest accused local Republicans of “hijack attempts” to control their efforts, The New York Times reports. “We had to stand our ground, I’ll be blunt,” Dann Selle, president of the Official Tea Party of Spokane, Wash. told The Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 I was browsing and dozing and came across this oldie from Ghs. Was Rand an original thinker? From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Ayn Rand in the 10th Century Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:11:19 -0500/ Here is a question for anyone who thinks that Ayn Rand owes nothing to her intellectual predecessors. Suppose Ayn Rand had been born in the 10th century, in the middle of what is commonly known as the "Dark Ages." This was an age of tremendous superstition with no science to speak of, and before much of Greek philosophy (including the vast majority of Aristotle's works) had become known to Western thinkers. So if Ayn Rand had been born in the 10th century, would she have been able to construct *every* aspect of her philosophy, as we now know it, in detail? If not, if there are some things that even Ayn Rand could not have derived from scratch, then what are they? My point, of course, is that every thinker draws (to some extent) from their intellectual culture and from the achievements of previous thinkers. And in order fully to appreciate a thinker's originality, we must understand their similarities as well as their differences. Given the repeated claims of Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander that I fail to appreciate Rand's originality in deriving an integrated philosophy, I would like to quote this passage from "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (in *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies*). After noting that some of Rand's ideas had been defended by earlier philosophers, I continued: "I do think that Rand was original in a more fundamental sense. A philosophy is (or should be) more than unconnected theories and arguments bundled together by a common name. A philosophy is an integrated and organized system of theories and arguments. Therefore, even if many elements of Objectivism can be found in other philosophers, this does not mean that Objectivism, considered as a philosophical system, is unoriginal." (p. 195) I hope this passage (which I have quoted before, but to no effect) helps to keep future misrepresentations of my views to a minimum -- but I doubt it. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 Mind. Body. Mind / Body. The young you. The older you. And this irrelevancy just popped into my head. Have you ever been very sure about something and then one day . . . your reasons for such surety no longer compute? That has never happened to me to my knowledge and memory. Introspectively is a word but is extrospectively? Forge on dear readers. Peter From: "William Dwyer" To: <objectivism Subject: OWL: The mind is PART OF the body Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:22:54 -0700. It is often said that a person is composed of a mind AND a body (as if the two were radically different substances), when in fact the mind is simply a certain activity of the brain as experienced subjectively and is therefore PART OF the body. Since mental activity is brain activity, and brain activity is a physical process, it follows that mental activity is a physical process. Whereas not all physical activity is mental, all mental activity is nevertheless physical, because it is performed by the brain, which is a physical organ. Indeed, people will often say, "Use your head!" or "Use your brain!" when they could just as well have said, "Use your mind!" In short, mental activity simply IS brain activity, experienced from an internal, rather than an external perspective. Perhaps an analogy will help. Because of its appearance in both the morning and evening skies at different times of the year, the Greeks thought the planet Venus was two separate objects, which they named Hesperus and Phosphorus. Eventually, it was discovered that Hesperus ("the morning star") and Phosphorus ("the evening star") were the same celestial body seen at different times and from different perspectives. Just as "the morning star" (visible in the eastern sky before sunrise) and "the evening star" (visible in the western sky at sunset) are not two different planets, but the same planet identified from two different perspectives, so the mind (identified introspectively) and the brain (identified extrospectively) are not two different organs, but the same organ identified from two different perspectives. Moreover, just as one can refer to Venus in the morning sky, as "the morning star," while recognizing that it is the same planet that's visible in the evening sky, so one can refer to (a certain part of) the active brain as "the mind," while recognizing that it is the same organ that's visible to the surgeon when he does a craniotomy. Another analogy which may be helpful is the atmospheric discharge of electricity, which we see as lightening. Thunder was not recognized as lightening, until scientists discovered that it simply _is_ the atmospheric discharge as reflected by the generation of sound waves, which travel slower than light. Today, lightning and thunder are recognized as the same electrical phenomenon identified by different means or from different perspectives. It is true that one cannot know, simply by looking at a certain part of the active brain (externally), that it is the organ that performs mental activity, just as one cannot know by engaging in mental activity that a certain part of the active brain is the organ performing it. Further study is needed to make the connection, just as further study was needed to make the connection between the morning star and the evening star, or between lightning and thunder. But once having made that connection, it is folly to deny it on the grounds that the brain's activity _appears_ different from a subjective perspective than it does from an objective one. -- Bill From: "George H. Smith" To: <objectivism Subject: OWL: Fw: The mind is PART OF the body Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:53:12 -0500. On 7/24/03, Bill Dwyer wrote: "It is often said that a person is composed of a mind AND a body (as if the two were radically different substances), when in fact the mind is simply a certain activity of the brain as experienced subjectively and is therefore PART OF the body." I see no problem in saying that a person "is composed of a mind AND a body," if by "body" we understand his physical characteristics exclusively. We needn't treat consciousness as a substance ("mind-stuff") in order to recognize that it has characteristics and powers that cannot be fully explained by referring to physical brain states alone. What does it mean to say that mind (or consciousness) "is simply a certain activity of the brain as experienced subjectively"? This suggests that the ability to "experience" something is a characteristic of physical matter when viewed from a certain perspective. But this *presupposes* the ability to attain this perspective in the first place, an ability that requires a state of consciousness before any experience is even possible. Strictly speaking, we do not normally "experience" brain activity. Rather, it is because brain activity causes a state of consciousness that we are able to experience things via sensations, perceptions, and thoughts. When I perceive a Mockingbird, I am not experiencing "a certain activity of the brain"; rather I am perceiving a Mockingbird. Of course, this experience depends on a physiological process. This process makes my perception of the Mockingbird possible; but the physiological process, the brain activity, is not itself the *object* of my perception. When I render an epistemological judgment, such as "X is true," my judgment (which is a type of experience) is not a report on my brain activities, nor is it merely those brain activities as "experienced subjectively" (whatever such a statement is supposed to mean). The *meaning* of "X is true" cannot be reduced to physical brain activities, which do not have "meaning" and to which concepts like "true" and "false" do not, and cannot, apply. Bill wrote: "Since mental activity is brain activity, and brain activity is a physical process, it follows that mental activity is a physical process. Whereas not all physical activity is mental, all mental activity is nevertheless physical, because it is performed by the brain, which is a physical organ." To say that mental activity is brain activity is not obviously true, if by this we mean that consciousness is "nothing but" brain activity. This reductionist thesis requires proof and may not be used as a postulate in order to avoid the traditional problems of mind-body interaction. Even if we do admit that "mental activity is brain activity," in the sense that consciousness is causally dependent on brain activity, it does not follow that mental activity is NOTHING BUT a physical process. This is a flagrant non sequitur. To repeat: When I say "X is true," I am not referring to a physical process of any kind, for physical processes can be neither "true" nor "false." I am not experiencing, or reporting on, my brain activities from a subjective point of view. Indeed, I have no idea what brain activities may be occurring when I render epistemological judgments of this sort, but I am able to understand a proposition, as well as assess its truth or falsehood, without a scintilla of such knowledge. Moreover, even if I had extensive knowledge of the brain activities that occur when I understand a proposition and assess its justification, this knowledge would not help one bit in my epistemological endeavors. My conscious experiences and the brain activities on which those experiences causally depend are NOT the same thing. We cannot simply say that mental activities are physical brain activities which are somehow experienced from a "subjective" point of view -- for this leaves unanswered the crucial question, How can a purely physical activity "experience" anything in the first place? Ayn Rand and other Aristotelian philosophers have correctly pointed out that the state of consciousness is an irreducible primary from an epistemological point of view. Moreover, conscious states are intentional; to be conscious is to be conscious of *something.* And this "something" is an object of perception, cognition, etc. -- not our physical brain activities. When I say "I see a Mockingbird" or "X is true," I am NOT describing my experience of neuronal firings in my brain, of which I may be totally unaware, and which, even if I were aware of them, would be irrelevant to the *meaning* of my experiences. Bill wrote: "Perhaps an analogy will help...Just as "the morning star" (visible in the eastern sky before sunrise) and "the evening star" (visible in the western sky at sunset) are not two different planets, but the same planet identified from two different perspectives, so the mind (identified introspectively) and the brain (identified extrospectively) are not two different organs, but the same organ identified from two different perspectives." This analogy assumes far too much, for we must ask: How is it possible for anything to have "two different perspectives" in the first place? Certainly we don't attribute this ability to the planet Venus. We don't say that the planet Venus can view itself from "two different perspectives," because we don't attribute consciousness to a physical planet. We say that humans can (and have) viewed Venus from two different perspectives because we know that humans have a rational faculty and are able to interpret a phenomenon in different ways. But it doesn't explain *anything* to say that consciousness is simply brain activity viewed introspectively -- for how is this even possible in the first place, if we are dealing with a purely physical process? Where is the "it" that has this introspective ability? If you answer that the "it" is the physical brain, then this merely reaffirms what few would deny, namely, that physical brain activities cause a state of consciousness. But this "mind" may have emergent properties and abilities that make it much different than the physical causes on which it depends. The cause of X is NOT the same thing as X; if it were, the cause and its effect would be indistinguishable. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 9 hours ago, Peter said: I was browsing and dozing and came across this oldie from Ghs. Was Rand an original thinker? From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Ayn Rand in the 10th Century Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:11:19 -0500/ Here is a question for anyone who thinks that Ayn Rand owes nothing to her intellectual predecessors. Suppose Ayn Rand had been born in the 10th century, in the middle of what is commonly known as the "Dark Ages." This was an age of tremendous superstition with no science to speak of, and before much of Greek philosophy (including the vast majority of Aristotle's works) had become known to Western thinkers. So if Ayn Rand had been born in the 10th century, would she have been able to construct *every* aspect of her philosophy, as we now know it, in detail? If not, if there are some things that even Ayn Rand could not have derived from scratch, then what are they? My point, of course, is that every thinker draws (to some extent) from their intellectual culture and from the achievements of previous thinkers. And in order fully to appreciate a thinker's originality, we must understand their similarities as well as their differences. Given the repeated claims of Ellen Moore and Jason Alexander that I fail to appreciate Rand's originality in deriving an integrated philosophy, I would like to quote this passage from "Ayn Rand: Philosophy and Controversy" (in *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies*). After noting that some of Rand's ideas had been defended by earlier philosophers, I continued: "I do think that Rand was original in a more fundamental sense. A philosophy is (or should be) more than unconnected theories and arguments bundled together by a common name. A philosophy is an integrated and organized system of theories and arguments. Therefore, even if many elements of Objectivism can be found in other philosophers, this does not mean that Objectivism, considered as a philosophical system, is unoriginal." (p. 195) I hope this passage (which I have quoted before, but to no effect) helps to keep future misrepresentations of my views to a minimum -- but I doubt it. Ghs Always good material from Ghs. In defense of Rand being - at least implicitly, and in many places explicitly - aware she'd built upon the thinking of previous giants, I believe she said something like [a systematic philosophy such as] Objectivism couldn't have been possible prior to, I'm quite sure she said, "the Industrial Revolution". (The Renaissance - the Age of Reason?) Maybe someone knows the exact quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 7 hours ago, Peter said: Mind. Body. Mind / Body. The young you. The older you. And this irrelevancy just popped into my head. Have you ever been very sure about something and then one day . . . your reasons for such surety no longer compute? That has never happened to me to my knowledge and memory. Introspectively is a word but is extrospectively? Forge on dear readers. Peter s Peter, the world is out of whack, not you I think. Recent - about the last three decades, imo - certainties we had of what humans were and were not capable of any longer, are being strained or regressing. "Reality", bless its soul, is unchanging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 29, 2021 Author Share Posted October 29, 2021 I enjoy that “Star Trek dilemma” when someone is “beamed aboard” and they have lost all knowledge of who they are or where they came from. YET they have an extensive and usable knowledge of how to talk, walk and interact with beings similar to themselves. Other Hollywood myths. Popular Celebrities Are In The Illuminati. Lindsay Lohan Had A Twin. George W. Bush’s Administration Caused Britney Spears’s Breakdown. Melania Trump Is Being Held Hostage. Lady Gaga Killed Someone. Katy Perry Is JonBenet Ramsey. Beyonce Is Dead. The Beatles Never Existed. Conspiracy theorists claim that the Beatles were not, in fact, made up of four distinct band members but were a conglomeration of actors and models who were used to create a worldwide phenomenon . . . . The theory is based off the idea that the schedules were too much for one band to keep up with, and because of it, body doubles were used in order to make appearances while still recording music. Differences such as eye and pupil disparities, nose length, height, teeth gaps, missing scars, and chin curvature are cited. In fact, the theory gained enough popularity that a 2009 Italian edition of Wired ran a facial analysis using the Beatles’ appearances and noted that there were differences in the band members’ facial features, Paul McCartney especially. This theory does nothing but fuel the fire that John Lennon is not dead; one of his body doubles was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now