People motivated by selfish self-interest, in a national marketplace, are "guided as if by an invisible hand" to benefit that marketplace, and therefore "their fellow man".
That individual in a free, capitalist society, can only make a profit by voluntary exchange - with both parties benefitting .
He is therefore guided to create products/services that benefit the most other people, he cannot benefit individually otherwise!
Not only is capitalism the most successful economic system, it is the most moral.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will_B I understand that you think people do thinge because it benefits them. But in regard to obeying laws there is a sense of duty and conscience. If I get really mad at someone I wont kill them even if it weren't against the law because I would feel bad for making everyone they know sad. I think your views are a bit too narrow is what I'm getting at.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps. But market theory makes as many assumptions as introductory physics does: no transaction costs/frictionless surfaces, perfect information/spherical cows, etc.
The problem with unregulated markets is that they are not free, because the natural market penalty for certain types of misrepresentation is less than benefit derived from them and because individual participants are able to make the market less free.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course there is misrepresentation in a free marketplace just as there is lying in everyday interaction with people: just because it happens does not mean that all people are bad or that morals are a sham.
Many people have the idea that making a profit is based on tricking someone or stealing from someone, though this is obviously possible, this is not the way that most people make money.
If a car salesman tricked someone into buying a horrible car, the car salesman would benefit in the short term, that is true.
In the long term however, it would be near impossible for him to continue to do this, especially in todays information age.
In the long term, he would almost certainly go out of business.
But lying salesman are a necessary evil in a free marketplace. I would rather choose a lying salesman voluntarily, and learn from that decision, than be forced to choose an honest one by my government.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
> Will_B I understand that you think people do thinge because it benefits them. But in regard to obeying laws there is a sense of duty and conscience. If I get really mad at someone I wont kill them even if it weren't against the law because I would feel bad for making everyone they know sad. I think your views are a bit too narrow is what I'm getting at.
No, Starsnuffer, that's not my view at all. I don't think people only do what benefits them. I think the opposite. I think that if people only did what benefited them, society would be awful (and I showed this several posts back). The idea that purely selfish motivation was sufficient justification for law has been proposed here, but not by me.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course there is misrepresentation in a free marketplace just as there is lying in everyday interaction with people: just because it happens does not mean that all people are bad or that morals are a sham.
Congratulations. You refuted an argument nobody made. *golf clap*
quote:But lying salesman are a necessary evil in a free marketplace. I would rather choose a lying salesman voluntarily, and learn from that decision, than be forced to choose an honest one by my government.
And if these were the only two choices, I might agree. But they're not. Not even close.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was refuting the argument that you made about misrepresentation in the marketplace.
You seemed to imply that because there is misrepresentation in the marketplace, the free market system does not work. Using that reasoning, I tried to show that the misrepresentation people do in their own lives does not lead to a similarly overgeneralized moral barrier.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But lying salesman are a necessary evil in a free marketplace. I would rather choose a lying salesman voluntarily, and learn from that decision, than be forced to choose an honest one by my government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And if these were the only two choices, I might agree. But they're not. Not even close."
Show me a government regulation and I'll show you a man with a gun pointing it at my head not allowing me to make choices that I may or may not want to make.
Just because something needs to be done in the marketplace or in society does not mean the government, much less the federal government, needs to do it.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, 'The Government' isn't some alien organisation imposed on us by little green fascists from Alpha Centauri. It is the representative of the people, not perfectly by any means, but reasonably responsive to their will. So when the federal government imposes a regulation (often against the will of the corporations it is imposed on) to benefit the rest of us, that is essentially the people taking the market in their own hands. What is the problem with that?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a powerful rhetorical technique, and sometimes maybe even a good idea, if it's done openly: restate the question to make it more friendly to one side. Surely, though, speaking ONLY of federal regulations that are beneficial to the public is too big a restatement? Plenty of federal regulations aren't.
We'd still have the issue of unwarranted invasion of personal freedom, and the problem that our government often makes legislation -- usually through the courts -- that the majority opposes.
[ May 30, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I was refuting the argument that you made about misrepresentation in the marketplace.
You seemed to imply that because there is misrepresentation in the marketplace, the free market system does not work. Using that reasoning, I tried to show that the misrepresentation people do in their own lives does not lead to a similarly overgeneralized moral barrier.
I do not imply that the free market system does not work. I stated that for a market to be free, some regulation is necessary. For example, the ability to compel performance when you prepay for delivery and delivery does not occur.
quote:Show me a government regulation and I'll show you a man with a gun pointing it at my head not allowing me to make choices that I may or may not want to make.
Just because something needs to be done in the marketplace or in society does not mean the government, much less the federal government, needs to do it.
If nothing else, a civil law system to enforce contractual and property rights and to allow bringing torts is necessary.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Surely, though, speaking ONLY of federal regulations that are beneficial to the public is too big a restatement? Plenty of federal regulations aren't.
We'd still have the issue of unwarranted invasion of personal freedom, and the problem that our government often makes legislation -- usually through the courts -- that the majority opposes.
I'm still a little curious how this topic got from gays to this. I'm going to have to look back and squint real hard. In the meantime...
The problem with putting the free market above government is that however flawed representative government may be, it's still on some level dictated by the people. If the representatives of the people aren't adequately serving the people, they are (at least in theory) eventually run out of office.
In the free market, representation is based on money. That representation comes in many forms, from a worker base that produces a product to a consumer base that purchases the product to the various upper-level executives and investors. But ultimately, your representation in that system is only based on your perceived value to it. A multi-millionare has many times the effective "vote" of a sweatshop worker in Indonesia.
Adam Smith (he of the "Invisible Hand") constructed an interesting and useful model of the market, but it was definitely flawed even at the time and has only become more so. The workers who produce a product in China are not part of the market for the same product. Their wages wouldn't even allow them to be part of that market. Those who conduct their business using them as a work force have no responsibility to them; indeed, if a cheaper work force becomes available, market forces encourage them to pull their ventures out of China and into the cheaper workforce.
It may be possible for the consumer base to inflict pressure on the system, through boycotts and letter-writing campaigns and such forms of public pressure. This kind of pressure becomes increasingly unlikely as the same business interests begin to control the flow of information that would inspire such public pressure.
The free market definitely has its points, but I'd argue it has absolutely no inherent morality of its own. This is why it is crucial for the people to instill some measure of control upon it. It doesn't take a very careful look at our current market model to suggest that over the long-term, it will probably be self-destructive. You just can't funnel your money into cheaper and cheaper work-forces, because in doing so you erode your own consumer base. However, it may take decades to do so, and to the executives who make such decisions, it may seem worth it. Local, individual self-interest trumps group and societal self-interest.
As for the judiciary, ideally it is their role to take the long view. Sometimes, that means taking actions of which the present majority may disapprove. It may make the majority uncomfortable to racially integrate their schools; forcing a company to dispose of their waste properly may raise the price of that company's product. But in the long term, the entire populace has a chance at a decent education, and doesn't increase their risk of cancer and birth-defects. We may not like some of those decisions, but we should be very careful before we arbitrarily revise that role.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still interested in hearing why Will thinks I choose to live a moral life, since by his logic it makes little sense for me -- an unbeliever -- to do so. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, over the years of lurking at Hatrack I think I've picked up a fair bit about your philosophy, Tom, but I'd nevertheless be pretty interested in an all-inclusive philosophy/manifesto/explanation thingy from ya.
Take your time. *grin*
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure that making environmental regulation is a brand new role for judges!
Not really. Nuisance, trespass, and other tort law have dealt with environmental issues for centuries, and most of that was made up by judges as they went along. That's what common law means.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I'm pretty sure that making environmental regulation is a brand new role for judges!
Making, yes. Enforcing, no. Whether and to what degree the rules are enforced makes a huge difference. Depending on the damage done, "environmental" enforcement may also fall under other legal statutes. Or a judge might accept reports produced by an industry's own scientists and turn a blind eye.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It turns out scientists recently altered a gene in a female fly that caused it to act as a male to attract a mate. Hmm. And there was a finding last year that the brains of homosexuals had an area that was larger than the same area in heterosexuals. Hmm. It'll be interesting to hear what the queer-haters will come up with when the proof becomes empirical that being homosexual is no more of a choice than it is being heterosexual.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
So let me see if I understand you. You're expressing implicit faith in the truth of a scientific idea that you acknowledge has not yet been proven Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually he doesn't do that Dag. Not at all.
The anti-homosexual bigots already denied gays the ability to adopt children in Texas based on terrible research done by a man who was censored and thrown out of the APA and ASA because he just couldn't stop lying and making things up.
I wonder as well if (as the increasing amount of reputable support seems to be suggesting) the idea that homosexuality has a biological/genetic component becomes strongly supported and widely accepted, what these people, accurately if crudely described as queer-haters, will come up with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, it's pretty obvious from curmudgeon's post that people will believe what they want to believe, pretty much regardless of the evidence Why even ask the question? I mean, to use an example you'll agree with, there are people who campaign every day to remove evolution from school curricula ...
Though some people do get sidetracked into pointlessly arguing the causes of homosexuality, the real debate here is about the wisdom and morality of promoting homosexual relationships as the equivalent of heterosexual relationships in our culture. If it is suddenly proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that homosexual desire is an entirely genetic phenomenon that cannot be affected by personal choice or environmental factors, the disagreement over what should be done about it on a societal level is still pretty much unchanged.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People seem to be assuming that the fact that a trait or desire is inborn, and isn't somehow the "fault" of the person experiencing it, automatically means that it should be indulged to the fullest possible extent.
The one does not imply the other. So establishing the cause of homosexuality does not automatically define the proper societal response.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He makes the clear implication that anyone who doesn't accept this "empirical proof" (whatever that is supposed to mean) at that point will be "queer haters." He also makes the clear implication that the queer haters as a group justify their hate based on homosexuality being a choice.
Both sides of this are flat out wrong. One only has to look to the KKK to see that humans are well capable of hating others for inborn traits.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Honestly, to me, those implications are by no means clear. They are certainly a great deal less clear than a lot of the implications I've gotten from OSC's writing that you've said you didn't see. Could you show me how it seems to you that curmudgeon makes that clear implication that everyone who disagrees with him is a queer-hater or that people or that peopel are incapable of hating for in-born traits? I don't see them at all.
I agree that whether homosexuality has a certain strength genetic or biological genesis should be largely irrelevant to the debate about its role in society, but from what I can see, it's not. There is a reason why gay advocates welcome each supporting bit of evidence for this gladly, while people who oppose pro-gay stuff put effort in to arguing against and discrediting them. Heck, a large percentage of OSC's arguements rely on this not being true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'll be interesting to hear what the queer-haters will come up with when the proof becomes empirical that being homosexual is no more of a choice than it is being heterosexual.
The very clear implication of this statement is that they will "come up" with something, and that the reason they will come up with something is related to their group attribute. What's the group attribute? "Queer hat[ing]." What's the event that will cause them to "come up" with something? "Empirical proof" that homosexual attraction is an innate trait. The one is linked to the other by the very nature of his pondering.
The only reason to ponder what a group will "come up" with after an event is because one believes the event is somehow important to a group. When the event is proof of the falsity of a particular premise, it's logical to conclude that premise is important to the group. When the group is identified solely by a belief ("queer-hating"), it's logical to conclude that the premise is one upon which the belief is founded.
posted
I'd give it up, Dagonee. Anybody who does such vile name-calling is not going to be convinced by any evidence, however ironclad.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is more of a study in interpretational methods at this point, Will B. And Squick is right that there are both "anti-homosexual bigots" and "queer haters" a-plenty in this country.
We happen to disagree on how many and on how much of current policy debate is driven by this factor. And no, we won't convince each other of that.
But the issue we're actually discussing is one of interpretation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, But many of the groups we're talking about are firmly entrenched on the biological basis for homosexuality issue. They've shown that they consider it important and attacked anything that supports the idea that it is strongly biologically determined. They've also shown, as bigots pretty much always do, that truth be damned, they're going to keep their prejudice. The supremecy of attitude over specifc, supportable beliefs is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.
Strong evidence for a biological component takes away the "It's unnatural" argument. It also pretty much takes away the "They're psychologicaly sick, probably because they were abused as children." one, although that's already been shown to be untenable and people (OSC included) cling to it anyway.
Regardless of all this, I don't think you've addressed where crummy clearly implied that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or that people can't hate for natural reasons.
The implications of Crummy's argument, as I read it, was that there exist anti-homosexual bigots and that they've made denying that homosexuality is significantly based in biology an important part of their thinking, such that, were it to be shown as something we can have a lot of confidence in, they'll need to come up with other reasons. That was the clear implcation I saw.
---
And hey, the bigots got gay people banned from adopting in Texas based on absurd logic from a terribly disreputable source. To me that's a pretty clear evidence that they hold a significant bit of influence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The implications of Crummy's argument, as I read it, was that there exist anti-homosexual bigots and that they've made denying that homosexuality is significantly based in biology an important part of their thinking, such that, were it to be shown as something we can have a lot of confidence in, they'll need to come up with other reasons. That was the clear implcation I saw.
You're leaving out the part where he blithely assumes they would come up with something new to justify their hate and that the evidence should be clear enough now that homosexuality is innate.
Whatever. You clearly disagree.
quote:And hey, the bigots got gay people banned from adopting in Texas based on absurd logic from a terribly disreputable source.
Right. Because there are no other possible reasons for supporting that law other than bigotry. Did you take a poll to find out why everyone who supported it did so?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He does assume that homosexuality is going to be priven innate. That's not a position I'd take, but I also think that the evidence for there being a biologial component is mounting (although to be honest, I don't follow that research with any sort of rigor). But I do address the second part, and pretty directly too. The prejudice comes first and the reasoning afterwards. If these people exist and if the biology thing is important to them (both of which I think are tenable statements), then if the biological nature of homosexuality is proven, they are going to come up with something else to justify their hatred. That's how prejudice works.
And you still haven't address the two points that you said were so clearly impied by his post, or if you have, it's been in such a way that I didn't catch it. Could you try to make it more explicit for me?
---
The Texas case wasn't a law and it was a pretty darn clear case of bigotry. We had a thread about it. The rationale explictedly used by the people who decided this was drawn from insupportable conclusions from the research of a guy who has lost his credentials because of his ethical violations. They were looking for a reason to deny gays rights. He provided it, even though he clearly had to make it up. And it'll will most likely stand until some "activist judge" makes them stop.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you still haven't address the two points that you said were so clearly impied by his post, or if you have, it's been in such a way that I didn't catch it. Could you try to make it more explicit for me?
What? In reverse order:
Implication 2: queer haters as a group justify their hate based on homosexuality being a choice.
Do you agree with my reasoning above that his statement suggests that the premise is foundational to the belief? You haven't really commented on it yet. The statement "X is a foundational premise of Y belief" is pretty much the same as "people who belive Y justify it with premise X."
Implication 1: anyone who doesn't accept this "empirical proof" (whatever that is supposed to mean) at that point will be "queer haters."
The thing they "come up" with can be of two forms: they can trash the conclusion or come up with a whole new reason to justify their belief. He's founded this on "empirical proof" being found and made the very clear implication that the group will do something intellectually dishonest (i.e., come up with a whole new reason to hate homosexuals). The flip side of this intellectual dishonesty would be to simply ignore the empirical proof. Why would someone do this? Why, because it justifies their hatred.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS: Do you believe that an "activist judge" overturning legislation without proving that it is un-Constitutional is a good thing?
Do you really want to give that power to these unaccountable-to-the-people judges?
I believe that these judges should have the place that the Constitution intended them to have: judging the laws, not creating new laws.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC does have a very interesting charater in the homecomming set where a gay man marries out of convience. I believe you find it near the end of "The Call of Earth" or in "The Ships of Earth". I read thoes back to back this week and well there a bit blurred together right now. But allso there was a theory mentioned in the book that homosexualiaty had it cause due to a random chance of the mothers hormone balance during a crutial time of the males development in the womb. OSC does not take a side in the book in his treatment of this charater allthough he brings up the social and inner conflict of being homosexual. I think he tries to say that a homosexual can be "redeemed" in a social sense thrugh a marraige of convience.
One last thought after "Enders Game" the rest of the set covers the concept of bigitory and the results of hatred for what people dont truly understand. I believe that is the truth of OSC conviction, as Ender learned more of the formics he couldn't blame them for what they are, but embrace them for there diffrences.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roy, When the judiciary strikes down that ban (which I imagine will take all of 5 minutes), they'll be amazingly within the realms of their jurisdiction. My stand on activist judges is somewhat complex, but my stand on "activist judges", which is what the bigots are going to call them, is pretty darn straightforward.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is amazing to me how the people who celebrate "diversity" often refer to others who have differing opinions and viewpoints as "bigots". Seems like diversity only applies to what fits for them.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Squick ignores is that there are probably many people that think the rule is stupid, would acitvely campaign or vote against it, yet still think it possible that the judges who strike it down are activist judges. It depends on the actual law and the actual justification used to strike it down.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started reading the beginning of the posts here, and they were very interesting, but since then the conversation seems to have degrated a bit. Anyway, the point I wanted to make was in reference to something that was said before, which was along the lines of: "why do gays have to get married? cant they just love each other or have civil unions etc." I would just like to add something that i think is relevant to this point of view. I feel that telling gays to have civil unions or some form of non-religious marriage would be akin to telling Rosa Parks to sit on the seats at the back of the bus, as they are just as comfortable as those in the front. The reason we should let gays marry is simply because they are people, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. There have been countless studies in recent years that show that being raised by a gay family has no more adverse effects than being raised by a strait family, and if there isnt any harm being posed to society by gay marriage (and now that science is advancing, there might even be ways for gay couples to reproduce, ie two gay men combining their DNA in the egg of one of their close female relatives) then why does it matter to anyone if gays marry? fow does it affect anyones life it the least bit? the answer is, it doesnt, at least that is my perception. and since i live in toronto (canada), where gays have been allowed to marry for a while now and there hasnt been any devastating consequences, how can anyone make a convincing case against gay marriage?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. E, I may have missed it. How is what you said in any way relevant to the conversation? I'm not sure that I see anyone celebrating diversity here nor do I see anyone calling people bigots because of a difference of opinion. Could you point these out to me?
Dag, I feel like there's a significant difference between "is ignoring" and "didn't mention in his post". Do you disagree?
It's possible that the judge who strikes this down could fit into the description of an activist judge. It's further possible, though I'd argue highly unlikely, that he'd ignore the many water tight justifications to strike it down in favor of making some crap up.
It's also possible that a meteor from outer space might crash down into the center of Texas and distribute a chemical that alters people's brains and spreads an overwhelming desire to help gay people and the Texas Great Gay Jamboree Jamboru of 2005 will go on to become a party still mentioned in legends centuries from now and this whole issue will drop by the wayside.
If you want to say that something is a likely possibility than just come out and say it. I don't think what you said is all that likely and it didn't really have much to do with my point, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me be blunt. Depending on the particulars of the law, I and many other people who tend toward strict constructionism would find a judge who overturned this to be activist.
Again, depending on the law. If a judge overruled state restriction of civil marriage to heterosexual couples on federal constitutional grounds I would call that judge activist.
Edit: And it's not just "likely" that a decision overturning this regulation would be judicial activism. It's more likely than not.
Sure, the bigots might call them activist judges. But I bet a lot more non-bigots would call them activist judges, too. And yes, it's relevant to your post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm not sure I followed your answer. I'll give my impressions.
This part:
quote:Implication 2: queer haters as a group justify their hate based on homosexuality being a choice.
Do you agree with my reasoning above that his statement suggests that the premise is foundational to the belief? You haven't really commented on it yet. The statement "X is a foundational premise of Y belief" is pretty much the same as "people who belive Y justify it with premise X."
I definitely don't agree with, as, again, we're talking about bigots. I was relatively sure that I've established that one of the central characteristics of bigots is that their attitude, and not specific beliefs, are the foundational part.
From The Nature of Prejudice(pp. 13-14):
quote:Mr. X: The trouble with Jews is that they only take care of their own group. Mr. Y: But the record of the Community Chest campaign shows that they give more generously, in proportion to their numbers, to the general charities of the community, than do non-Jews. Mr. X: That shows they are always trying to buy facor and intrude into Christian affairs. They think of nothing but money; that is why there are so many Jewish bankers. Mr. Y: But a recent study shows that the percentage of Jews in the banking business is negligible, far smaller than the percentage of non-Jews. Mr. X: That's just it; they don't go in for respectable business; they are only in the movie business or run night clubs.
The other part seems to me to stumble on the same part and I've yet to see a reason for how he was clearly implying that anyone who disagrees with him was labeled a bigot.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, (edit: remove snark) I'm not going to let your conception of bigotry, especially when it's unlikely to be one fully understood and shared by the poster of the original statement at issue, set the stage for how I interpret things someone else writes.
I'm sorry, we're not going to agree on your premises about bigotry. You paint with your bigotry brush far more than you have proof to do so.
posted
Dag, I'm mainly asking you to show me how hese implications were clear. I honestly didn't see them at all. I still have no idea why you think they are so clear.
I'll restate my impression. Crummy establishes that there are queer haters and that they are going to come up with something when homosexuality is proven to not be a choice. That is what you think he says, right?
I don't see the implications that you claim are so clear, nor do I see why you think they are clear at all. He certainly makes no claims that believing it is a choice is the only or even a foundational part of anti-gay bigotry. I think it is clearly implied that it is a popular component of this bigotry, but I don't see anything else there.
And I don't see where he says that people who don't think that homosexuality isn't going to be shown to not be a choice are bigots. He makes a strong pronouncement that he thinks it will be, but makes no character assesments, implied or otherwise) of the people who don't think it will be.
I don't see how my mind reading enters into it. You were the one who made the statement that it's clear to see what this guy meant. I don't think it is and you've failed to establish this to my satisfaction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
