sjw Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 I found this paragraph in John McCaskey's amazon review particularly apt:Generally, scholars who try to recreate the development of scientific concepts in the minds of great scientists are struck by how successful these scientists are in making propositional generalizations while still forming--and often themselves never fully forming--the concepts that constitute the generalizations. The narrative these scholars present (using Harriman's metaphor, not theirs) is not that a fully formed concept comes into the mind of the scientist who then uses it as a green light to an inductive propositional generalization, but that a partly formed concept serves as a flickering greenish light to a partial generalization, which acts as a less flickering, somewhat greener light to a better concept, which in turn improves the generalization, which then improves the concept, and so on, until well-defined concepts and associated propositional generalizations emerge fully formed together (at which point, the subjectivist says, "See, it's all just a matter of definitions.") Most scholars find the process of scientific progress less linear than Harriman indicates and much more iterative and spiral. It reminds me of one of Jean Piaget's last articles, on the dialectical spiral of concepts, predicates, judgments, and inferences.Robert CampbellPS. Once Peikoff believed in something that he called "the spiral progression of knowledge." Seems like a very long time ago.A very common idea in modern software development I might add.Shayne
sjw Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 This strikes me as a fairly serious Objectischism.Oh, yes. This is the big one, the real one -- the one where those who aren't willing to fix the problems in Objectivism will go one way and those who are will go the other. It's been coming a long while.EllenCan't be fixed and still be called "Objectivism" IMO. I think Objectivism needs to go the way of Aristotelianism -- a great advancement to be cherished for what's good in it but not put forth as the "final truth."Shayne
9thdoctor Posted September 6, 2010 Author Posted September 6, 2010 The two books together are routinely referred to as I, Claudius, not The Claudius Series or some such. Wikipedia follows this usage.Indeed, Wikipedia only has one page for both books. I still think of them as separate, and I think the first is the better one. BTW I’ve started the HBO series Rome, and I’m quite impressed. Be warned that the sex gets pretty shocking.Regarding McCaskey's fitting in at TAS. Are there indications that he's planning to join TAS? None at all, that was 100% speculation on my part. It seems he’s brought money in to ARI, enough to merit a mention in the Peikoff email. Now that I've calmed down from (my virtual screaming fit of) post #12, Did this really put you out of commission for a whole day? Next time try first bathing your temples with Eau de Cologne, then apply an ice pack to the frontal lobes, and finally crack open a beer. That's not accurate. He didn't "denounce" the book. That means to condemn or censure in a very wholesale way. I do disagree with your definition of “denounce”. Peikoff was wrong to use the term because whatever comments McCaskey made were made privately. To "condemn or censure in a very wholesale way", but behind closed doors, isn't to denounce. He probably did make some cutting criticisms, and I get the impression that Harriman is a crybaby. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denounce?show=0&t=1283737433PS, I would like to add that one should not hold people to informal communications as in email - and P's comments are from an email. No one would want to be held to every email he every wrote or informal discussion or 'rant'. So in such cases it is always possible someone was imprecise or posted rashly and in the heat of anger. And with a cooler and wiser head, will retract and amend his statements.I think he took his time writing it, and authorized its subsequent release to the ARI board. Days past, he had time to reconsider. Otherwise heads will roll, don't you think? Which is not to say that he authorized it's release to the public. Alternately, he's about to be ousted, and the attorney is in effect staging a coup. There's a faint hint that that's a possibility, I wouldn't bet a thin dime on it unless someone offers million to one odds.
kiaer.ts Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 (edited) PS, I would like to add that one should not hold people to informal communications as in email - and P's comments are from an email. No one would want to be held to every email he every wrote or informal discussion or 'rant'. So in such cases it is always possible someone was imprecise or posted rashly and in the heat of anger. And with a cooler and wiser head, will retract and amend his statements.I disagree with this, Phil. This was Peikoff writing to the legal department of ARI. You can tell from this style that it is a long practiced method of dealing with people for him. It also reminds one of the breathless hyperbole of Fact and Value and his dealings with the Library of Congress (in which he was justified, but foolish). What we see here is his private modus operandi when he isn't concerned with the public becoming aware of what he wrote. There is another shoe to drop - who leaked the email cc'd to Yaaron Brook? Edited September 6, 2010 by Ted Keer
kiaer.ts Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Indeed, Wikipedia only has one page for both books. I still think of them as separate, and I think the first is the better one. BTW I've started the HBO series Rome, and I'm quite impressed. Be warned that the sex gets pretty shocking.. . .I think he took his time writing it, and authorized its subsequent release to the ARI board. Days past, he had time to reconsider. Otherwise heads will roll, don't you think? Which is not to say that he authorized it's release to the public. Alternately, he's about to be ousted, and the attorney is in effect staging a coup. There's a faint hint that that's a possibility, I wouldn't bet a thin dime on it unless someone offers million to one odds.Yes, Rome is great in the first season, five out of five. Filming the second season, they knew it had been cancelled, and they changed pace to fit in more of the story and changed the actor playing Augustus and his characterization. He goes from a serious young man played by a talented actor to a superficial pervert played by an actor totally unbelievable as ruler of the world. I would not watch it again or recommend it to an enemy.Yes, that the release of the letter was a ploy to have Peikoff ousted occurred to me too. If Peikoff released it deliberately, he's totally lost it.
9thdoctor Posted September 6, 2010 Author Posted September 6, 2010 There is another shoe to drop - who leaked the email cc'd to Yaaron Brook?Read the resignation letter again: "The Board of the Ayn Rand Institute recently received the following message from Dr. Leonard Peikoff, released here with his permission." BTW I saved the page when it was first put up, as did Robert Campbell so he can back me up on this, "released here with his permission" wasn't there originally.
kiaer.ts Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 There is another shoe to drop - who leaked the email cc'd to Yaaron Brook?Read the resignation letter again: "The Board of the Ayn Rand Institute recently received the following message from Dr. Leonard Peikoff, released here with his permission." BTW I saved the page when it was first put up, as did Robert Campbell so he can back me up on this, "released here with his permission" wasn't there originally.My fault, I missed that. Peikoff is an incontrovertible fool. Rand murdered him when she made him her heir. He's a walking argument for the inheritance tax.
Robert Campbell Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 "The Board of the Ayn Rand Institute recently received the following message from Dr. Leonard Peikoff, released here with his permission." BTW I saved the page when it was first put up, as did Robert Campbell so he can back me up on this, "released here with his permission" wasn't there originally.Right.I made a PDF of the page right away, as such things have a tendency to vanish.The sentence originally read, "The Board of the Ayn Rand Institute recently received the following message from Leonard Peikoff." "Released here with his permission" is a more recent addition.Robert Campbell
Dennis Hardin Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 On the other hand, David Kelley has made no progress in philosophy of science, nor he has he given it a high priority in his work—and TAS has invited some speakers who do follow Peikoff and Harriman.Robert CampbellBTW, do you happen to know what David Kelley is working on? I assume he must be working on something of importance since Ed Hudgins seems to be the primary spokesperson for TAS these days.I had such high hopes for The Objectivist Center when Kelley first announced that he was starting his own organization. Things have not worked out the way I thought they would--by a long shot.
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 I think he took his time writing it, and authorized its subsequent release to the ARI board. Days past, he had time to reconsider. Otherwise heads will roll, don't you think? Which is not to say that he authorized it's release to the public. Alternately, he's about to be ousted, and the attorney is in effect staging a coup. There's a faint hint that that's a possibility, I wouldn't bet a thin dime on it unless someone offers million to one odds.I wondered about the possibility of the attorney "in effect staging a coup." From whom had McCoskey gotten the letter? (Of course possibly he received a bbc.) The addition of the information that it was released with Peikoff's permission militates against the idea of a "coup" being in the works. Nonethless, there are a couple odd hints in this paragraph:When a great book sponsored by the Institute and champioed by me -- I hopeyou still know who I am and what my intellectual status is inObjectivism--is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which Ifounded, someone has to go, and someone will go. It is your prerogative todecide whom.The underlined parts sound as if Peikoff is slowly being forgotten in ongoing activities, and the hint that it might be Peikoff who goes and that Mann has the prerogative of deciding who goes...is interesting.Ellen
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Can't be fixed and still be called "Objectivism" IMO. I think Objectivism needs to go the way of Aristotelianism -- a great advancement to be cherished for what's good in it but not put forth as the "final truth."I'd have no problems with just leaving the name as that of an historic system and going on from there. After all, AR herself said, in a Ford Hall Forum response which received thunderous applause (maybe the most thunderous of any answer I heard live): (quoting from memory) "You no longer have to call yourself a 'student' when you no longer need to use your teacher's name."Ellen
9thdoctor Posted September 6, 2010 Author Posted September 6, 2010 From whom had McCoskey gotten the letter? (Of course possibly he received a bbc.) He was on the board, the letter was sent to the board...he resigned from the board.
Robert Campbell Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Peikoff's suggestion that the Board might decide to get rid of him, instead of McCaskey, is purely rhetorical.Peikoff controls the Estate of Ayn Rand. If he is booted from the Board of ARI, he terminates all cooperative arrangements, formal and informal, between the Estate and ARI.They all know this.Robert Campbell
Robert Campbell Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Can't be fixed and still be called "Objectivism" IMO. I think Objectivism needs to go the way of Aristotelianism -- a great advancement to be cherished for what's good in it but not put forth as the "final truth."Shayne,I agree.Objectivism should be defined as the Orthos wish to define it. As a system left incomplete on Ayn Rand's death, no changes or additions ever allowed, it is a historical artifact.That's why I suggested that McCaskey is better off doing his research without the sponsorship of any Objectivist organization.Robert Campbell
Brant Gaede Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 The basic problem of Objectivism is all the arbitrary aspects which has bloated it up as opposed to the truly objective elements. In this sense most of what Ayn Rand wrote is not Objectivism at all and Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand is actually the pearl inside the oyster. She created her ideal man and created a philosophy to go with him, but most of it falls down right there at the beginning. Everybody lives a messy life but not a Randian hero, not inside his head. It's as if she were actually trying to find a state of zen for him to replace the state of social and political existence which has been contentious throughout humans' being, as for all life. Not yet being in the state of Galt's grace, Hank can slap Francisco, but Francisco isn't going to slap John even in the pain--too much mitigated pain--of having lost Dagny, whom he actually lost years before when he gave up love and sex to go on that silly strike. The irony of her self-sacrificing heroes was completely lost to Ayn Rand as was lost to her self-sacrificing followers who sacrificed their natural individualism thinking they were Roarks not Keatings. Fortunately not all of them gave up being the boy on a bicycle, self-redemption being possible.--Brant
Donovan A. Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Robert Campbell’s thread has drifted/devolved to such a point I think it’s time to start a fresh one to share this news. An ARI board member, John McCaskey, has posted an Amazon review of the Harriman book, and resigned from ARI within the last 24 hours. http://www.amazon.com/review/R33YO57MMEDAJ7/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0451230051&nodeID=#wasThisHelpfulhttp://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.htmlWatch out for flying fur.
Donovan A. Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Subject: Abuse of PowerNow that I've calmed down from (my virtual screaming fit of) post #12, I want to methodically dismantle Peikoff's horrifying statements piece by piece. It's important that *no shred of what he is advocating or claiming be allowed to stand*:1. "In essence [McCaskey's] behavior amounts to: Peikoff is misguided, Harriman is misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on these issues is inadequate..."But Leonard Peikoff has pointed out - repeatedly, emphatically, and with great heat - that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's contributions not his, that it is the name for her philosophy. Not his. And thus his writings after her death and those of Mr. Harriman are not part of Objectivism.They are an application or extension. And on top of that, hardly obvious or cut and dried, because they are in a very technical, detailed, and difficult specialized field.So how can any disagreement by anyone with a book on the history of science and on induction be contrary to Objectivism? And if he's not rejecting Objectivism, why would Peikoff consider this serious enough to demand his expulsion?2. "M attacks Dave's book and thus....my course on induction."He didn't apparently. The claim he "attacks" the book is a very great exaggeration. Unless M was saying things he didn't believe on Amazon in the reader comments, he thinks the induction work is a major contribution and has some disagreements with some smaller issues regarding the history - regarding what Galileo and Newton did. Really trivial stuff!! So does someone have to agree with *every word on every topic* touched on in this book, otherwise he should be expelled?3. "When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute...."That's not accurate. He didn't "denounce" the book. That means to condemn or censure in a very wholesale way. It's also an exaggeration to say selling an important book in your bookstore or the same thing as "sponsoring" it.3-Continued. "...someone has to go."So basically, it's him or you and if he's not expelled, you will bail out of your promise to Ayn Rand to support and contribute to advancing her philosophy through the main organ that exists to spread the ideas? And -why- would you do that exactly? Even if someone were to completely disagree with Peikoff about the DIM Hypothesis, and his theory of induction, and his view that Classical Greece is the best historical civilization, and his views about whether to vote for Democrats or Republicans this year, or whether to bomb the NYC mosque, NOT ONE OF THOSE VIEWS is part of Objectivism.If everyone has to agree with you one every application, else you just might expel them, not only do you have to be infallible, but everyone else has to have your level of knowledge.And all you are left with is sycophants who will -pretend- to agree with everything you say one every subject. Hardly practitioners of a philosophy of reason or the inhabitants of Atlantis.,,,,PS, I would like to add that one should not hold people to informal communications as in email - and P's comments are from an email. No one would want to be held to every email he every wrote or informal discussion or 'rant'. So in such cases it is always possible someone was imprecise or posted rashly and in the heat of anger. And with a cooler and wiser head, will retract and amend his statements.Philip, I agree with the majority of what you said except in reference to email accountability. Considering Peikoff's stature (Phd in philosophy and proclaimed intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, "greatest living philosopher," etc. etc.), he should be held at a higher standard than most people. Isn't there an old saying about a gentleman - he never insults someone unintentionally.
BaalChatzaf Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Speaking of Galileo, I read a philosopher the other day who described his method as "Platonic/experimental" and said Galileo claimed we had to "mistrust our senses" because it doesn't seem that the earth is moving.I suspect the history of science is not as tidy as Harriman makes it out.-Neil ParilleGood grief, yes! There were not only idea clashes but personality clashes. Look at what went on between Newton and the other members of the Royal Society. The Newton-Hooke feud is legendary. And the calculus wars between the fans of Newton and Leibniz to say nothing of the acrimony between the principles themselves. Then in the 19th century there were the Machian positivists and the atomists of which Bolztmann was numbered. The wars raging around Boltzman's atomic idea and statistical mechanics were such as to leave the wretched man in a depressed state. He committed suicide in 1906. Ernst Mach refused to believe that atoms existed literally almost to his dying day. Einstein's seminal paper on the Brownian Motion did not quite convince Mach. Then there were the wars between the Heisenberg chums and the Schroedinger buddies. That war was finally ended when Dirac showed that the two seemingly different theories were mathematically equivalent. There were the disputes between the Copenhagen type and people who believed in their hear that unseen causal factors were at work. Einstein and Bohr had a two decade long dispute (it was reasonably good natured and they remained friends personally but were a loggerheads intellectually and philosophically). And so on and so on.In the realm of biology the feud between the Darwinists and the Lamarckians is legendary. And of course there is open warfare between the Evolutionists and the Creationists. Here is the thing. People who dedicate their lives to science are very serious about what they do. Their entire being and all their energy is wrapped around their work. When disagreements arise they are not settled as calmly and logically as one might suppose they could be. Generally people who introduce hypotheses that run counter to the Received View suffer from mild arguments to riducule and insult. Look at Franz Zwicky. Aside from looking like a troll or a gnome he had a rotten attitude toward people. Folks just didn't like Zwicky by he was dead on right when he hypothesized there is non-radiating matter embedded in the galaxies that account for anomalous motion curves. There mystery stuff is called dark matter (because it does not shine) but its presence is observed, either that, or our best theories of gravitation are extremely wrong. In geology there was the notion that the continents actually moved. Ridiculous! When Alfered Wegener proposed this hypothesis in the early 20th century he was laughed at. What could a meteorologist possible know about the solid earth? Eventually signs of paleomagnetism were discovered in the 1960's that supported Wegener's hypothesis and it is now the Recieved Wisdom. Entire books have been written about the infighting among advocates of opposing theories. The fighting is passionate and sometimes down right nasty. I hope this is a partial answer to your question.Ba'al Chafatz
Dennis Hardin Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Can't be fixed and still be called "Objectivism" IMO. I think Objectivism needs to go the way of Aristotelianism -- a great advancement to be cherished for what's good in it but not put forth as the "final truth."Shayne,I agree.Objectivism should be defined as the Orthos wish to define it. As a system left incomplete on Ayn Rand's death, no changes or additions ever allowed, it is a historical artifact.That's why I suggested that McCaskey is better off doing his research without the sponsorship of any Objectivist organization.Robert CampbellRobert,Curious how you square that with Rand's own statement from Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed:Ancier: Miss Rand, is there anything more to say about your philosophy that you haven’t said already?AR: I’m glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you would know that I haven’t nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done.Interview with Garth Ancier of “Focus on Youth,” 1976Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand InterviewedEdited by Marlene Podriske and Peter Schwartz(P. 239)
sjw Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Robert,Curious how you square that with Rand's own statement from Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed:My own position used to be that I accepted Rand's word "Objectivism" to refer to the truth -- and I thought she, in essence, had the truth. I used to think that where she had got things wrong was insignificant in comparison to where she got them right. So I used the word "Objectivism" to refer to my own views, which I saw as essentially in line with hers (I did disagree with her about patents). Several things however have convinced me to reject this term for my own views.1. In the forward of The Objectivist Forum, she insultingly denigrated anyone who might think for themselves. Why should I grant her the massive compliment it is for me to use *her* word to refer to what *I* think when the word comes with a slap in the face?2. The Objectivist movement has long been dominated by cultism and authoritarianism. I don't want to be associated with that.3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.Shayne
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.I've sort of had the opposite development. I've come to think she was more right in ways I hadn't realized on issues which weren't that much of interest to me until recent years. Specifically her seeing to the core of the nature of statism and its consequences, and her delineation of motives of those who seek power. I've come to have a much greater appreciation of the importance of her political philosophy.Mostly, issues on which I thought she was wrong, I still think she was wrong -- and with much more knowledge of why -- mostly issues pertaining to epistemology and science, and to psychology (I include the specifics of her theory of volition).Ellen
sjw Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.I've sort of had the opposite development. I've come to think she was more right in ways I hadn't realized on issues which weren't that much of interest to me until recent years. Specifically her seeing to the core of the nature of statism and its consequences, and her delineation of motives of those who seek power. I've come to have a much greater appreciation of the importance of her political philosophy.Mostly, issues on which I thought she was wrong, I still think she was wrong -- and with much more knowledge of why -- mostly issues pertaining to epistemology and science, and to psychology (I include the specifics of her theory of volition).EllenIf one wants to learn, it is best to adopt a stance of regarding the teacher as superior until such time as one has learned what one can learn from them. Perhaps in your youth you were more arrogant and dismissive than you should have been.Her political philosophy is precisely the area where I have come to have the most disagreement, in spite of my agreement with the spirit behind it. Take her position on patents, and unwind it to the premises behind it, or her arguments against anarchism (note: I am not an anarchist, but do I disagree with her arguments against it).Shayne
Mike Renzulli Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 Not altogether surprising but I don't think it was a good idea for John McCaskey to post the e-mail nor follow up with comments.I realize Dr. McCaskey should have the right to dissent, however this looks like had he not resigned McCaskey would have been another notch on Leonard Peikoff's belt of ousting people who disagree with him.
kiaer.ts Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.I've sort of had the opposite development. I've come to think she was more right in ways I hadn't realized on issues which weren't that much of interest to me until recent years. Specifically her seeing to the core of the nature of statism and its consequences, and her delineation of motives of those who seek power. I've come to have a much greater appreciation of the importance of her political philosophy.Mostly, issues on which I thought she was wrong, I still think she was wrong -- and with much more knowledge of why -- mostly issues pertaining to epistemology and science, and to psychology (I include the specifics of her theory of volition).EllenIf one wants to learn, it is best to adopt a stance of regarding the teacher as superior until such time as one has learned what one can learn from them. Perhaps in your youth you were more arrogant and dismissive than you should have been.Her political philosophy is precisely the area where I have come to have the most disagreement, in spite of my agreement with the spirit behind it. Take her position on patents, and unwind it to the premises behind it, or her arguments against anarchism (note: I am not an anarchist, but do I disagree with her arguments against it).Five senses of ObjectivismObjectivism in various senses, from most abstract to least, can be defined as:• The primacy of existence and the invalidity of the stolen concept.......................essential Objectivism • Reality - Reason - Egoism - Capitalism............................................................core Objectivism • Rand's broad published philosophical doctrines................................................ canonical Objectivism • Everything Rand held, opined, or authorized and did not repudiate before death...Randian Objectivism, or "Randianism"• Whatever Leonard Peikoff judges to be Objectivism.........................................."Official" Objectivism I consider myself to be in agreement with essential and core Objectivism, and to disagree with certain aspects in the ethics or canonical Objectivism. Obviously Ifind the fifth sense to be a red light to induction.
Ellen Stuttle Posted September 6, 2010 Posted September 6, 2010 3. Rand is more wrong on more issues than I had originally thought. And these are not minor issues, they are of fundamental import.I've sort of had the opposite development. I've come to think she was more right in ways I hadn't realized on issues which weren't that much of interest to me until recent years. Specifically her seeing to the core of the nature of statism and its consequences, and her delineation of motives of those who seek power. I've come to have a much greater appreciation of the importance of her political philosophy.Mostly, issues on which I thought she was wrong, I still think she was wrong -- and with much more knowledge of why -- mostly issues pertaining to epistemology and science, and to psychology (I include the specifics of her theory of volition).EllenIf one wants to learn, it is best to adopt a stance of regarding the teacher as superior until such time as one has learned what one can learn from them. Perhaps in your youth you were more arrogant and dismissive than you should have been.No, not at all. Gentle and happy. I had a fairly halcyon childhood and youth, except for some family tragedies. I grew up in the Midwest town Peoria, Illinois, my family was well-to-do, the atmosphere I experienced was that of the benevolent side of the '50s. My teachers were superb. I was lucky to have really top-flight teachers in both grade school and high school, and then some further ones at Northwestern. My life was like something AR commented once. She said that she worked for the sort of world in which one didn't have to think about politics. That's the world I felt I grew up in. I just didn't realize that politics was something that would cause trouble in America. On the other hand, I was well-read in philosophy and literature and psychology. The area where I did study Rand to learn was literary. My initial interest in her more than anything else was because of how stupendous a writer she was. I recognized mastery from the first page of Atlas Shrugged.Ellen
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