Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 76

Thread: dialectics

  1. #1
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default dialectics

    The following has been detached from another thread:

    Astarte (who is now called 'hierophant'): still wallowing in Idealist heaven/hell:

    my analysis of the process that could lead the USA to be on the verge of fascism only has a leg to stand on at all if you see the contradiction during the Cold War as being one essentially between labor and capital.
    Why is this a 'contradiction'; it doesn't even look like one. [Expect a deafening silence in response...]

    So, for Rosa the conflict between the USA and USSR and PRC was just a matter of opposing ideas held by competing pools of capital - for me it was one based in opposing class forces and in a globalized/globalizing world this meant this was a kind of global class war - which yes, is a somewhat Maoist position.
    This was simply rivalry between two imperialist powers; but what has that got to do with your 'analysis'? Which still seems to me to be on a par with your views about 'mysticism' -- entirely idealist.

    So, that is my thesis on how the US could be verging on fascism and I understand why Trotskyists would consider it vulgar.
    In fact, your 'analysis' is full of non sequiturs, so, far from my view being that your 'analysis' is vulgar, my view is that I still fail to see link between these 'thoughts' of yours and the claim that Trump is a fascist, or that the US is on the verge of fascism, or even on its way to that 'verge'.

    But, hey, we are used to you swallowing half-digested, odd ideas, and then regaling the good folk here with them (while high or otherwise), so I suppose this latest fantasy of yours was only to be expected.

    It's a sort of dialectical process.
    As I said: pure idealism.

    Thanks for further confirming my allegations. :-)
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 07-02-2017 at 1:50 AM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  2. #2
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Donald Ducker:

    But they're currently (virtually at this very moment) making a deal with a proto-fascist to insure their hold of the House & to expand their majority to the other two branches. & that guy's biggest contender was another proto-fascist firmly within the ranks of the Republican Party itself who was to the right of the proto-fascist they're currently currying favor towards with. This is a reflection of an alliance being formed between conservative & proto-fascist forces.
    Ah, they must be as you say, Oh Great One; we have learnt to accept your assertions with humility as gospel truth. No less so here.

    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  3. #3
    Senior Voting Member hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Astarte: still wallowing in Idealist heaven/hell:



    Why is this a 'contradiction'; it doesn't even look like one. [Expect a deafening silence in response...
    The reason why i don't engage you is because doing so means descending into a bottomless pit of nonsense. There was no contradiction between the USA, USSR and PRC during the Cold War according to you. I will let that stand on its own as the absurdity of it is self apparent.


    This was simply rivalry between two imperialist powers; but what has that got to do with your 'analysis'? Which still seems to me to be on a par with your views about 'mysticism' -- entirely idealist.
    To you capitalism can be based on legally enshrined collective property in which the capitalists are not legally allowed to hold capital or use capital privately other than in an extremely limited sense for petty trade or for investment in the Soviet state. Even during the revisionist era the plan and collective property predominated and kept market activity marginalized and mostly illicit until the 1980s. The only way the USSR can be considered "capitalist" is essentially by mistaking some capitalist features in a predominantly collective economic structure for meaning the whole structure is capitalist which means changing the entire definition of capitalism. But you reject the dialectic, so why not also reject the fundamentals of what makes capitalism capitalism also.

  4. #4
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Astarte:

    which are always the first layers of both labor and capital to succumb to the natural contractions of the capitalist mode
    You keep helping yourself to this word (i.e., 'contradiction') without even once justifying it -- especially since the things you seem to think are 'contradiction's don't even look like contradictions.

    This isn't to pick on you; Marxist idealist like your good self have been doing likewise for over 160 years. Perhaps you lot need more time to explain yourselves?
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  5. #5
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Astarte (now called hierophant):

    The reason why i don't engage you is because doing so means descending into a bottomless pit of nonsense.
    Don't be so hard on yourself.

    There was no contradiction between the USA, USSR and PRC during the Cold War according to you. I will let that stand on its own as the absurdity of it is self apparent.
    In fact, all I did was ask you to explain why this is a contradiction, when it doesn't even look like one. You need to explain what one of these 'contradictions' is, and justify the use of that word, before we can decide if there is one here to begin with.

    [As I predicted: Expect a deafening silence in response. You lot haven't a clue why you keep using this word, have you? You are simply happy to swallow a 'theory' you can't defend.]

    To you capitalism can be based on legally enshrined collective property in which the capitalists are not legally allowed to hold capital or use capital privately other than in an extremely limited sense for petty trade or for investment in the Soviet state. Even during the revisionist era the plan and collective property predominated and kept market activity marginalized and mostly illicit until the 1980s. The only way the USSR can be considered "capitalist" is essentially by mistaking some capitalist features in a predominantly collective economic structure for meaning the whole structure is capitalist which means changing the entire definition of capitalism.
    Lots of words again, but no attempt to show how this has got anything to do with your allegations that Trump is a fascist, or that the US is on the verge of fascism, or even on its way to that 'verge'. Perhaps you think repetition is the same as proof?

    I fear you do...

    But you reject the dialectic,
    Well, you are signally incapable of defending a 'theory' you can't even explain, so no good looking to you to 'sort me out' is it?

    so why not also reject the fundamentals of what makes capitalism capitalism also.
    No, I'll leave that to the experts: you Idealist revisionists.

    Have a nice fume...
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 06-14-2017 at 4:07 AM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  6. #6
    Senior Voting Member hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,325

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Astarte:



    You keep helping yourself to this word (i.e., 'contradiction') without even once justifying it -- especially since the things you seem to think are 'contradiction's don't even look like contradictions.
    Even between competing pools of capital contradictions exist and even if you view the USSR or PRC as a pool of capital competing with US imperialism things like the Korean and Vietnam Wars would be obvious contradictions within the capitalist mode of economy which would lead to its break down or catastrophe, or interruption of business as usual if taken to their eventual end of war or world war. Competition between competing pools of capital is a contradiction within capitalism itself. If you view USSR and PRC as forces primarily representing proletarian or oppressed class forces then the contradiction would be one within the transitional epoch which demands either capital or labor prevail as the dominant mode, whereas if labor does not prevail imperialist barbarism continues and fascism prevails.

    Quote Originally Posted by RL
    This isn't to pick on you; Marxist idealist like your good self have been doing likewise for over 160 years. Perhaps you lot need more time to explain yourselves?
    No sure what you are talking about but you seem to think contradiction within the capitalist mode does not even exist when pools of capital compete to the point where the system begins to unhinge itself as it did during WWI and WWII.

  7. #7
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default dialectics

    Astarte:

    Even between competing pools of capital contradictions exist and even if you view the USSR or PRC as a pool of capital competing with US imperialism things like the Korean and Vietnam Wars would be obvious contradictions within the capitalist mode of economy which would lead to its break down or catastrophe, or interruption of business as usual if taken to their eventual end of war or world war. Competition between competing pools of capital is a contradiction within capitalism itself. If you view USSR and PRC as forces primarily representing proletarian or oppressed class forces then the contradiction would be one within the transitional epoch which demands either capital or labor prevail as the dominant mode, whereas if labor does not prevail imperialist barbarism continues and fascism prevails.
    As I noted earlier:

    You keep helping yourself to this word (i.e., 'contradiction') without even once justifying it -- especially since the things you seem to think are 'contradiction's don't even look like contradictions.

    This isn't to pick on you; Marxist idealist like your good self have been doing likewise for over 160 years. Perhaps you lot need more time to explain yourselves?
    And, as I predicted -- since this is the standard tactic adopted by you dialectical mystics when asked to justify your use of this word:

    Expect a deafening silence in response...
    Until you tell me what you mean by this word, and why it is justifiable to use it in such contexts, you might just as well have posted this:

    Even between competing pools of capital coffee grinders exist and even if you view the USSR or PRC as a pool of capital competing with US imperialism things like the Korean and Vietnam Wars would be obvious coffee grinders within the capitalist mode of economy which would lead to its break down or catastrophe, or interruption of business as usual if taken to their eventual end of war or world war. Competition between competing pools of capital is a coffee grinder within capitalism itself. If you view USSR and PRC as forces primarily representing proletarian or oppressed class forces then the coffee grinder would be one within the transitional epoch which demands either capital or labor prevail as the dominant mode, whereas if labor does not prevail imperialist barbarism continues and fascism prevails.
    There is just as much of a link between this odd use of 'coffee grinder' and actual coffee grinders as there is between your odd use of 'contradiction' and actual contradictions.

    Here is a genuine contradiction:

    C1: There is competition between competing pools of capital and there isn't.

    Now, that's a contradiction; the ones you seem fixated on don't even look like this.

    But, you have a 'reply':

    No sure what you are talking about but you seem to think contradiction within the capitalist mode does not even exist when pools of capital compete to the point where the system begins to unhinge itself as it did during WWI and WWII.
    How can anyone answer that question until you tell us why you want to use this word ('contradiction') here. I keep asking, but all we get from you is:

    Deafening silence....
    And just to help you out, I have typed the following again more slowly:

    This. Isn't. To. Pick. On. You. Marxist. Idealists. Like. Your. Good. Self. Have. Been. Doing. Likewise. For. Over. 160. Years. Perhaps. You. Lot. Need. More. Time. To. Explain. Yourselves?
    [You can see James C here helping himself to this word, too; ask him and he too will go rather quiet. Sophisticated Marxist though he is, he can't explain himself either. Why is this? Why can't you lot explain this core concept? (Ravn, too, gave up trying to explain it months ago, but that hasn't stopped him from using it.)]

    Let me know which words, or combinations of words, are still taxing your comprehension, and I'll be happy to assist you further. :-)
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  8. #8
    Senior Voting Member MEGAMANTROTSKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    263

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Rosa, I don't see what your vendetta against dialectics has to do with the thread's topic. Would you mind moving it somewhere else?
    Custom avatar provided by the user Veritas.

  9. #9
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    It is in fact central to it: those debating here keep using terms they lifted from Hegel (or Engels, or Lenin, or Mao...) with no idea what they mean, but they bandy them about as if they do.

    I think it needs pointing out that this particular emperor has no clothes.

    I have no objection if a mod wants to move my comments and those who have responded to me to another thread, though.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  10. #10
    Senior Voting Member MEGAMANTROTSKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    263

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    It is in fact central to it: those debating here keep using terms they lifted from Hegel (or Engels, or Lenin, or Mao...) with no idea what they mean, but they bandy them about as if they do.

    I think it needs pointing out that this particular emperor has no clothes.

    I have no objection if a mod wants to move my comments and those who have responded to me to another thread, though.
    It would certainly be one thing if your arguments related to the content of their views on fascism. But you deliberately restrict yourself to their use of philosophical terminology in order to drag your vendetta into other threads like these. I suspect you simply can't help yourself, but it is off-topic and it is irritating that you persist with your behavior after being called on it time and again. Rather than bother a mod to split yet another thread, I humbly request that you restrain yourself for the time being unless it pertains to the actual topic under discussion.
    Custom avatar provided by the user Veritas.

  11. #11
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    MegamanT:

    It would certainly be one thing if your arguments related to the content of their views on fascism. But you deliberately restrict yourself to their use of philosophical terminology in order to drag your vendetta into other threads like these. I suspect you simply can't help yourself, but it is off-topic and it is irritating that you persist with your behavior after being called on it time and again. Rather than bother a mod to split yet another thread, I humbly request that you restrain yourself for the time being unless it pertains to the actual topic under discussion.
    Are you saying that dialectics isn't central to every aspect of Marxism? That would be an interesting reaction from an avowed Trotskyist, especially when Trotsky himself had this to say:

    "...Dialectic training of the mind, as necessary to a revolutionary fighter as finger exercises to a pianist, demands approaching all problems as processes and not as motionless categories." [In defence of Marxism, p.70.]
    Bold added.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/tro...m/09-pbopp.htm

    So, I am sure you'll forgive me for taking Trotsky at his word (even if you seem not to want to do this), especially when members here also drag 'dialectical concepts' into the discussion and clearly haven't a clue what they mean.

    Of course, if you think Trotsky was wrong, and this 'theory' doesn't apply right across Marxism, don't be shy, speak up.

    [On edit, I have added a missing "not" to this clause: "even if you seem not to want to do this".]
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 05-15-2016 at 1:17 PM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  12. #12
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Comrades might be interested in a debate I am having (concerning Marx and 'the dialectic') over at the SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) Forum:

    http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/f...and-philosophy
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  13. #13
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Comrades might be interested in a debate (although I use that word very loosely) I have been involved in about 'dialectics', over at Reddit:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommu...d_dialectical/
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  14. #14
    Voting Member Iapetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    I have a question for Rosa. How does Wittgenstein's method not apply on your use of the words '' contradiction '' or '' dialectics ''? Why are you making an exception for the use of these particular terms? And apart from that, what is the alternative you are proposing to us? OK, lets assume that there is no such thing as holistic thinking when describing nature. You have yet to prove that the holistic way of thinking does not apply to economic or social affairs.

  15. #15
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Ok, thanks for that, Iapetus. Beginning with the last question:

    You have yet to prove that the holistic way of thinking does not apply to economic or social affairs.
    In fact, I acknowledge that holistic ideas have their place if they are part of a scientific theory of, for example, social development, since we as human beings have made our own history (but not always under circumstances of our own choosing). However, if it can be shown that we made all of nature, I might change my mind about its universal use.

    How does Wittgenstein's method not apply on your use of the words '' contradiction '' or '' dialectics ''? Why are you making an exception for the use of these particular terms?
    1) What part of his method were you thinking about?

    2) Here is what he said about the use of the negative particle (which, as I am sure you know, is integral to the use of "contradiction", even in dialectics) :

    "There can be no debate about whether these or other rules are the right ones for the word 'not'.... For without these rules, the word has as yet no meaning; and if we change the rules, it now has another meaning (or none), and in that case we may just as well change the word too." [Wittgenstein (2009), §549, footnote, p.155e.]
    Wittgenstein, L. (2009), Philosophical Investigations, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, revised by Peter Hacker and Joachim Schulte (Blackwell, 4th ed.).

    In which case, if the negative particle typically maps a truth onto a falsehood, or vice versa, then a contradiction can't be true, but must either be senseless or false.

    3) Of course, Dialectical Marxists can use words in any way they please (not that they need my permission or acquiescence), the problem is that when asked to explain what they mean by "contradiction", for example, they can't. In fact, not even they seem to know what they mean by this word.

    Why are you making an exception for the use of these particular terms? And apart from that, what is the alternative you are proposing to us?
    4) I'm not "making an exception for the use of these particular terms", I take exception to a whole range of words that dialecticians use (and then struggle to explain).

    5) I propose no alternative philosophical theory, since I reject all philosophical theories as incoherent non-sense.

    Here is why:

    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why...n-sensical.htm

    [If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), the above ink I won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add my site (anti-dialectics.co.uk).]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  16. #16
    Voting Member Iapetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    In fact, I never said we made all of nature. Marx is using the term dialectics in Das Kapital, where he is describing the capitalist economic system. And the use of that term means a holistic approach to Capitalism as a world system. So, to repeat, you have yet to prove that the holistic ( dialectical ) way of thinking does not apply to economic or social affairs.

    The words ''contradiction'' and ''dialectics'' have many uses like other words, as Wittgenstein points out in the Philosophical Investigations. So, why are you disregarding Wittgenstein's own method particularly for these terms?

    And, by ''alternative'' I don't mean a philosophical theory. I mean political alternative. In terms of political organization and action what alternative do you propose? On a macroscopic level the choice is still to be made between Socialism or militarism/ecological suicide. Your demolition of dialectics adds nothing to this. You have resigned from political activity since the early 90s and now you are spending your time ''demolishing'' the dialectics on the internet. You are using this ''demolition'' as an excuse for resignation from political activity altogether.

  17. #17
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Iapetus:

    In fact, I never said we made all of nature.
    I never said you did.

    Marx is using the term dialectics in Das Kapital, where he is describing the capitalist economic system. And the use of that term means a holistic approach to Capitalism as a world system. So, to repeat, you have yet to prove that the holistic ( dialectical ) way of thinking does not apply to economic or social affairs.
    I think you missed this comment of mine:

    In fact, I acknowledge that holistic ideas have their place if they are part of a scientific theory of, for example, social development, since we as human beings have made our own history (but not always under circumstances of our own choosing).
    You:

    The words ''contradiction'' and ''dialectics'' have many uses like other words, as Wittgenstein points out in the Philosophical Investigations. So, why are you disregarding Wittgenstein's own method particularly for these terms?
    Again, I think you missed this comment too (we aren't going to get far if you fail to read the answers I have given and proceed as if I hadn't answered them -- you don't have to accept what I say, but ignoring what I say is no way forward, is it?):

    3) Of course, Dialectical Marxists can use words in any way they please (not that they need my permission or acquiescence), the problem is that when asked to explain what they mean by "contradiction", for example, they can't. In fact, not even they seem to know what they mean by this word.
    Wittgenstein also said that the meaning of a word is given by an explanation of that meaning, and DM-fans fail miserably here.

    "The meaning of a word is what is explained by the explanation of the meaning.” i.e., if you want to understand the use of the word “meaning”, look for what are called “explanations of meaning”. (PI 560)
    If that weren't so, speakers would be able to use any word they liked in any way they liked without explaining themselves. So, I could start using "contradiction" in sentences like this "I found the square root of a contradiction by using a dead haddock" -- coded messages to one side, of course --, but then refuse to explain what I meant. DM-fans do likewise.

    And, by ''alternative'' I don't mean a philosophical theory. I mean political alternative. In terms of political organization and action what alternative do you propose? On a macroscopic level the choice is still to be made between Socialism or militarism/ecological suicide. Your demolition of dialectics adds nothing to this. You have resigned from political activity since the early 90s and now you are spending your time ''demolishing'' the dialectics on the internet.
    Alternative to what? There are a 1001 different versions of Marxism out there.

    You are using this ''demolition'' as an excuse for resignation from political activity altogether.
    You don't know anything about me, or what I do or do not do.

    Can I assume things about you based on what I don't know about you?
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 06-29-2017 at 6:05 AM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  18. #18
    Voting Member Iapetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    You understand very well what I mean when I say political alternative. So please, don't give me answers like ''Alternative to what?'' You spend your time demolishing the dialectics. OK, now what? Do you have an alternative to propose to the programme of SWP, other than disagreeing with dialectics? Anyway, you are right that I shouldn't care about your private life. That was a mistake from my part.

  19. #19
    Voting Member Iapetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    As for giving an explanation of meaning, don't we use phrases when we speak with ourselves that have a specific meaning for us? ( This has nothing to do with dialectics by the way). I wouldn't be able to explain those kinds of thoughts to anyone else, for they are very personal. Why does every phrase need to be understandable by everyone in order to make sense?

  20. #20
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Iapetus (now claiming miraculous mind-reading powers):

    You understand very well what I mean when I say political alternative. So please, don't give me answers like ''Alternative to what?'' You spend your time demolishing the dialectics. OK, now what? Do you have an alternative to propose to the programme of SWP, other than disagreeing with dialectics? Anyway, you are right that I shouldn't care about your private life. That was a mistake from my part.
    Off-topic in this thread.

    As for giving an explanation of meaning, don't we use phrases when we speak with ourselves that have a specific meaning for us? ( This has nothing to do with dialectics by the way). I wouldn't be able to explain those kinds of thoughts to anyone else, for they are very personal. Why does every phrase need to be understandable by everyone in order to make sense?
    I'll be happy to respond when you stop treating me with contempt.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •