Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Type this conversation

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type this conversation


    Subject 1 (9:47:34 PM): what's your source of ethics?

    Auto Response from Subject 2 (9:47:34 PM): I have to find you... tell you I need you......

    Let's go back to the start

    Subject 2 returned at 9:58:05 PM.
    Subject 2 (9:58:13 PM): my source of ethics?
    Subject 2 (9:58:32 PM): now do u differentiate between ethics and morals?
    Subject 1 (9:58:59 PM): Not sure, they seem to be generally the same thing. google time...
    Subject 2 (9:59:02 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (9:59:06 PM): someone says ethics are learned
    Subject 2 (9:59:10 PM): morals are inherent
    Subject 2 (9:59:22 PM): hence why it's bu
    Subject 2 (9:59:31 PM): 'business ethics' and not 'business morals' etc...
    Subject 1 (10:01:18 PM): It appears to vary depending on who you ask/read.
    Subject 2 (10:01:21 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:01:25 PM): well on that, then
    Subject 2 (10:01:50 PM): i learned them from my parents/family, from the generally good parts/laws of society, my own standards, religion plays a part
    Subject 1 (10:03:24 PM): interesting, but how did you decide which ones were good, and which weren't?
    Subject 2 (10:04:41 PM): personal standards
    Subject 2 (10:04:42 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:04:50 PM): and mostly, if it's not publicly admitted, s'not good
    Subject 2 (10:04:50 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (10:04:56 PM): And all I can get on the distinction, is that they're essentially the same thing, but from different roots (greek and latin)
    Subject 2 (10:05:33 PM): well some ppl differentiate, lol. i never did
    Subject 1 (10:06:14 PM): do you think there's anything inherently good about any of them, or that their 'goodness' is externally defined, and even mutable in social context?
    Subject 2 (10:06:36 PM): meaning?
    Subject 1 (10:09:24 PM): do you think that any or all of the ethics you've adopted are intrinsically good, or that they are good because that is the general consensus? ie, do you think that it is invariably good to refrain from murder (except possibly in defense of self or others), or that this is dependent on circumstance and/or the values of the society?
    Subject 2 (10:09:46 PM): murder is one I think that is inherently programmed, aside from sociopathy
    Subject 2 (10:10:04 PM): thinking in evolutionary terms-- it does no benefit to kill of another human in terms of fitness
    Subject 2 (10:10:17 PM): partly because mates are numerous and we mostly practice monogamy
    Subject 2 (10:10:28 PM): and secondly because society would shun you and ud lose out on any potential mates, lol
    Subject 2 (10:10:35 PM): so we're selecting for peaceful people
    Subject 2 (10:10:45 PM): but that is a very scientific approac
    Subject 2 (10:10:46 PM): h
    Subject 2 (10:10:48 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (10:12:36 PM): sure it could be beneficial: murdering others can increase the resources available to yourself. And whether society would shun you for it may depend on whether they participated in it, or whether they thought it was in their interest. The best groups are not necessarily the largest, and some 'pruning' could at time be useful, no?
    Subject 2 (10:13:07 PM): no, but fitness (not fit, theresa diff) in strictly in terms of reproduction
    Subject 2 (10:13:15 PM): and murder does not increase your chances of reproduction
    Subject 1 (10:15:13 PM): murder all the males, and there's a chance I'm both the most fit, mentally and/or physically, and I'll have all the females to myself. Likewise, these females could do quite a bit, if not all, the work the men did, AND there would be more natural resources per capita, including for the inevitable (I would hope) new offspring.

    (unless of course, they go the way of the lesbian lizards)
    Subject 1 (10:15:35 PM): (in which case I'm [sadly] NOT fucked, but fucked all the same...)
    Subject 1 (10:15:55 PM): (ie, schrödinger's fucked...)
    Subject 2 (10:16:06 PM): yes, but the energy expenditure you'd have trying to murder all males would probably leave you unable to mate, especially if you died in the process
    Subject 2 (10:16:13 PM): it's more beneficial to peacefully find a mate
    Subject 1 (10:18:37 PM): that depends on the size of the population. If the population concerned is a few hundred on some number of acres, it would not be too considerable an expenditure. You're also assuming it all would have to be done at once, but the expenditure could be spread over time such that the net is still the same, but the average is lower. Further, ratios could be far enough off (eg, via sex-related disease) that (in this example) females could be a rare commodity.
    Subject 2 (10:19:07 PM): but they arent
    Subject 2 (10:19:09 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:19:13 PM): you werent asking a hypothetical
    Subject 1 (10:19:17 PM): yes, I was
    Subject 2 (10:19:20 PM): but even if that were true-- ur showing that murder is inherent
    Subject 1 (10:19:41 PM): why is it inherent? just because it seemed like the thing to do?
    Subject 2 (10:19:42 PM): because nature would select for the murderous males because theyd be more likely to mate with more women-- greater fitness
    Subject 1 (10:19:52 PM): aha
    Subject 2 (10:20:04 PM): ?
    Subject 1 (10:20:49 PM): but then we throw competing groups into the equation...

    (the 'aha' was acknowledgement that you answered the question)
    Subject 2 (10:21:06 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (10:23:58 PM): examples: Lions. Males tend to compete to be the sole male in the pride (though the women, generally, do not), and

    Wolves. Several males and females, arranged in a hierarchy.

    Both are approximately equally successful, but different ethics (as it were) of murder (murder, for this discussion, only regarding others of the same species).
    Subject 2 (10:24:39 PM): (we were only talking humans)
    Subject 2 (10:24:44 PM): and murder refers to murdering in cold blood
    Subject 2 (10:24:46 PM): does it not?
    Subject 1 (10:25:50 PM): indeed, but I was making a distinction between (for, eg, a human) murdering another human, and murdering a cow.
    Subject 2 (10:26:02 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:26:15 PM): but s'not murder in that case, lol, ur doing it to eat
    Subject 2 (10:26:17 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:26:27 PM): that's killing
    Subject 1 (10:26:28 PM): As for why I used other species in a topic relating to humans, it has to do with the evolutionary argument
    Subject 2 (10:26:32 PM): haha sematnics, yay!!
    Subject 2 (10:26:38 PM): semantics*
    Subject 1 (10:26:43 PM): that depends on which tree-huggers you talk to.
    Subject 2 (10:28:22 PM): hahaha
    Subject 1 (10:28:26 PM): (eg, the popular slogan "meat is murder!")
    Subject 2 (10:28:26 PM): notice tree huggers dont hug cows
    Subject 2 (10:28:30 PM): meat is edible
    Subject 2 (10:28:31 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:28:40 PM): yet they save plenty of animals that kill for meat
    Subject 2 (10:28:40 PM): hahaha
    Subject 1 (10:28:43 PM): so are trees.
    Subject 1 (10:29:04 PM): yeah, I never said ANYTHING about their sanity...
    Subject 2 (10:29:20 PM): hahahahaha
    Subject 2 (10:29:20 PM): \
    Subject 1 (10:31:30 PM): but back on topic, still holding that an ethical law against murder is evolutionarily beneficial?
    Subject 2 (10:33:00 PM): no, u asked if the law wasnt there would we still not do it
    Subject 2 (10:33:09 PM): but yea, it is evolutionarily beneficial
    Subject 2 (10:33:14 PM): it weeds out aggressors, in a way
    Subject 2 (10:33:17 PM): and preserves the species
    Subject 1 (10:34:58 PM): No, I asked if it was inherently good, or defined by circumstance and the norms of society. (though whether we're programmed for it, or would tend towards it, is an interesting topic).

    ::takes a quick look at the rap sheets:: say again?
    Subject 2 (10:35:10 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (10:35:15 PM): we are inherently good, I think
    Subject 1 (10:35:17 PM): And I believe I got that last one the working model of the lions
    Subject 2 (10:35:27 PM): although we got in to a discussion on child abuse the other day
    Subject 2 (10:35:52 PM): and did you know that statistics show a SIGNIFICANT portion of child abuse is by step fathers to their spouse's children from another man?
    Subject 1 (10:36:16 PM): No, but neither am I surprised.
    Subject 2 (10:36:26 PM): i wasnt surprised
    Subject 1 (10:36:32 PM): evolutionarily, they have less inherent worth to the guy.
    Subject 2 (10:36:35 PM): but for things like that, i mean, it was negating all other variables
    Subject 2 (10:36:40 PM): income, etc...
    Subject 2 (10:36:53 PM): you'd figure somewhere down the line, after all these years, that some factor could affect that
    Subject 1 (10:36:57 PM): kinda like fine porcelain, or a paper plate. much more careful about one than the other.
    Subject 2 (10:37:01 PM): true
    Subject 1 (10:38:31 PM): Some factors DO affect it. While the greater part of child abuse may be conducted in such relations, it may be, on a whole, less than it would otherwise be.
    Subject 2 (10:38:47 PM): no, but i mean
    Subject 2 (10:38:59 PM): it wasnt like, it decreased in level for stepfathers with more money
    Subject 2 (10:39:02 PM): or of a different race
    Subject 2 (10:39:04 PM): that didnt lower it
    Subject 2 (10:39:09 PM): it was just... random
    Subject 2 (10:39:09 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (10:40:49 PM): ah. That I do find interesting to a degree. It is also possible that the tendancy may be inherent (I'm getting to use that a lot lately. whee!) in the person, so whether the paper plate is red or blue, or paper or plastic, may not matter so much as that it is not porcelain. (how's that for stretching an analogy?)
    Subject 1 (10:41:39 PM): Did you notice if there were any correlations with whether the children were at some point adopted by the non-blood father?
    Subject 2 (10:43:02 PM): i dont remember the entire discussion
    Subject 2 (10:43:07 PM): ill have to look up the details he gave us
    Subject 1 (10:45:07 PM): oh well. Anyway, my hypothesis is that such a circumstance may correlate with a decrease in occurence (though it may still be higher than the blood fathers), because it may signify a greater valuation of the children. This could be offset, however, by social or personal pressure (eg, the spouse)
    Subject 2 (10:45:20 PM): i dont think adoption made a difference
    Subject 2 (10:45:32 PM): it was completely that the child wasnt a genetic relative
    Subject 1 (10:47:03 PM): how would you know if it wasn't taken into account?
    Subject 2 (10:50:11 PM): lol i dont remember
    Subject 2 (10:50:14 PM): id hafta look up the notes
    Subject 2 (10:50:18 PM): it was a random convo one day
    Subject 1 (10:50:24 PM): ah.
    Subject 1 (10:53:48 PM): Do you think laws that defy your ethics should be disobeyed?
    Subject 2 (10:54:48 PM): that is by circumstance... but id draw the line at "it personally effects me".... meaning if i were anti abortion, it can still be legal, but if it were "murder for self defense is illegal" id still kill some guy that points a guy at my head, lol
    Subject 1 (10:55:49 PM): what if he points a handsome guy at you?
    Subject 2 (10:55:56 PM): hahahahahahaha
    Subject 2 (10:56:02 PM): then id prolly hug him, haha
    Subject 1 (10:57:08 PM): Ok, so what if it were made illegal to be a brunette? Doesn't really affect you, since you be blonde..
    Subject 2 (10:57:24 PM): lol that doesnt violate my ethics
    Subject 2 (10:57:26 PM): but it IS stupid
    Subject 2 (10:57:35 PM): and, unfortunately, being stupid isnt unethical
    Subject 2 (10:57:36 PM): haha
    Subject 1 (11:00:19 PM): hmm....maybe it should be....ok, thoughts of suits for spilling coffee on yourself being cause for you to go to jail aside, what about another:

    making being Jewish, or Buddhist, illegal, you being a good christian and all?
    Subject 1 (11:01:01 PM): Though I should prolly rephrase the original question given the examples I'm using.

    Nah, better use better examples...
    Subject 1 (11:01:06 PM): (one moment)
    Subject 2 (11:01:40 PM): if one made religion illegal, that's personally affecting, id practice anyway
    Subject 2 (11:01:40 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:01:49 PM): but u see the diff?
    Subject 1 (11:03:05 PM): No, because in both instances, NEITHER is personally affecting to you, since the options that were made illegal were specifically chosen to NOT be you.
    Subject 1 (11:03:22 PM): ah, unless you mean religion vs. the examples I gave
    Subject 1 (11:03:28 PM): in which case, yes.
    Subject 2 (11:03:45 PM): i mean, that where i buddhist, id practice anyway
    Subject 2 (11:03:52 PM): were*
    Subject 1 (11:07:34 PM): Anyway, I've been (poorly, in hindsight) to lead into:
    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.
    Subject 2 (11:08:00 PM): very nice
    Subject 1 (11:08:29 PM): - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
    Subject 2 (11:08:44 PM): that's good
    Subject 1 (11:09:37 PM): yeah, well, first the came for the brunettes...
    Subject 1 (11:09:40 PM): *they
    Subject 2 (11:10:15 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:10:22 PM): i didnt say i wouldnt speak out against it
    Subject 2 (11:10:25 PM): just that I wouldnt violate it
    Subject 2 (11:10:26 PM): big diff
    Subject 1 (11:10:53 PM): indeed. Which is why I said I needed to rework either the examples or the question.
    Subject 2 (11:11:10 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:11:15 PM): rather ask
    Subject 2 (11:11:31 PM): "if you knew a law was unethical, but it didnt directly affect you, would you still try to change it?"
    Subject 1 (11:13:58 PM): perhaps. But most people would say yes, whether or not they actually follow through, because they may have different views of how to go about changing it. I was looking more to things along the line of the underground railroad type of defiance of the law.
    Subject 2 (11:14:34 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:15:51 PM): So, seeing what I meant, what would you say?
    Subject 2 (11:16:03 PM): underground rebellion? if i believed in the cause, yea
    Subject 2 (11:16:16 PM): id pass wigs to brunettes, haha
    Subject 1 (11:18:38 PM): but then we come to another dilemma: red, blonde, white, or purple? ô.o these are the decisions upon which FUTURES are staked!
    Subject 2 (11:18:56 PM): :-)
    Subject 2 (11:18:58 PM): indeed
    Subject 1 (11:22:42 PM): and if they were going to arrest you for it? armed rebellion, or just go with it?
    Subject 1 (11:22:50 PM): (or something else, of course)
    Subject 2 (11:22:57 PM): um... peaceful protest
    Subject 2 (11:23:03 PM): MLK Jr said it best, baybay
    Subject 2 (11:23:04 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:23:30 PM): quote(s)?
    Subject 1 (11:24:23 PM): and what if the penalty were more than just a short time in jail? perhaps life, or the loss of it?
    Subject 2 (11:24:49 PM): um, if we were talking about something more serious than hair, perhaps
    Subject 1 (11:27:56 PM): substitute the persecution of choice.
    Subject 2 (11:28:41 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:28:44 PM): perhaps
    Subject 2 (11:28:45 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:28:49 PM): im human, i wont die for much
    Subject 2 (11:28:49 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:29:21 PM): the essence comes to this: would you die for your ethics? only some of them? none?
    Subject 2 (11:32:59 PM): some
    Subject 2 (11:35:15 PM): lol
    Subject 2 (11:35:17 PM): odd i know
    Subject 1 (11:35:18 PM): Do you know which ones?
    Subject 2 (11:35:26 PM): not off the top of my head
    Subject 1 (11:37:30 PM): Not really. Some just aren't worth it considering they're results. Eg, I value humans more than dogs, and though I think it unethical to mistreat a dog, if I were given the choice between saving the dog and myself dying, or know the dog suffered a cruel death or continued suffering, and myself live, I would choose the latter.
    Subject 2 (11:37:57 PM): true
    Subject 1 (11:41:08 PM): I'd be in a bit of a dilemma if I had to choose between myself and another human though, or even a group of humans. (ideally of course, this wouldn't happen, but...)

    How would you choose?
    Subject 2 (11:42:12 PM): i dunno
    Subject 2 (11:42:14 PM): depends on the cause
    Subject 1 (11:44:19 PM): to be dramatic - death, on someone's arbitrary say-so, for one of the groups.
    Subject 1 (11:44:31 PM): Volunteers accepted
    Subject 2 (11:46:22 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:47:55 PM): Is it a personal ethic of yours to not get drunk/otherwise intoxicated on foreign substances?
    Subject 2 (11:48:02 PM): it's not an ethic
    Subject 2 (11:48:05 PM): i just dont do it
    Subject 1 (11:48:16 PM): because?
    Subject 2 (11:48:51 PM): other substances-- are illegal, they do no good, only harm
    Subject 2 (11:49:04 PM): alcohol- i dont want to be so drunk i get sick or cant remember stuff or act like an ass
    Subject 2 (11:49:12 PM): and i dont like the taste of most alcohols anyway
    Subject 2 (11:49:25 PM): alcohols meaning vodka, beer, etc... s'all ethanol
    Subject 2 (11:49:26 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:50:32 PM): do you think those "other substances" should be illegal?
    Subject 2 (11:50:48 PM): yes
    Subject 2 (11:51:10 PM): one of my democratic traits is when you know society will only fuck itself over in an aspect, u try and prevent it
    Subject 2 (11:51:15 PM): lol
    Subject 1 (11:52:22 PM): lol, nice way to put that (and I AM going to come back to it), but how about alcohol?
    Subject 2 (11:52:33 PM): i thought it was well worded
    Subject 2 (11:53:02 PM): we will never outlaw alcohol, but if we did it wouldnt hurt
    Subject 2 (11:53:09 PM): but alcohol isnt detrimental in moderation
    Subject 2 (11:53:14 PM): so why make it illegal? no real reason
    Subject 2 (11:53:49 PM): i think cigarrettes should go, first
    Subject 2 (11:53:54 PM): lol. theyre disgusting and do no good
    Subject 1 (11:54:22 PM): and marijuana, often lauded to be as harmless, or nearly so, as alcohol?
    Subject 2 (11:54:34 PM): marijuana isnt harmless
    Subject 2 (11:54:45 PM): thats bullshit, im tired of people buying it
    Subject 2 (11:55:05 PM): it does NO good, impairs judgement, they find traces of the THC in user's bodies 20 yrs after theyve stopped using... how the hell is that healthy? lol
    Subject 2 (11:55:14 PM): alcohol in moderation doesnt impair memory, pot does
    Subject 2 (11:55:23 PM): you cant smoke "just a little pot" and not get high
    Subject 2 (11:55:28 PM): sorry, it's a big issue for me
    Subject 2 (11:55:54 PM): pot has tons more carcinogens than cigs, is mentally addictive (not physically, albeit), and ppl are always like "cigarretes are more harmful than pot" BULL. lol
    Subject 2 (11:56:39 PM): again, sorry
    Subject 1 (11:56:43 PM): no prob, I like the long responses, esp. the ones that are well-supported.
    Subject 2 (11:56:46 PM): it's always funny when people touch a nerve
    Subject 2 (11:56:51 PM): lol this one is
    Subject 2 (11:57:09 PM): and on the idea of medicinal marijuana use?
    Subject 2 (11:57:12 PM): i used to support it
    Subject 2 (11:57:35 PM): then i discovered that there are 13 naturally occurring cannabinoids in plants, 4 in the human body, and that we can synthetically create them
    Subject 2 (11:57:53 PM): -- you can have the same affects medicinally without the side affects of pot-- no need to legalize it
    Subject 1 (11:57:53 PM): (speaking of medicinal, is morphine still legal?)
    Subject 1 (11:58:03 PM): really? interesting...
    Subject 2 (11:58:08 PM): yes it is, with monitoring. as it should be-- overdoses kill
    Subject 1 (12:02:04 AM): Now, back to that oh-so-interestingly-put statement....

    Does that only apply to society as a whole, or to individual persons as well?
    Subject 2 (12:02:14 AM): what do you mean?
    Subject 1 (12:04:05 AM): Do you think a person should be restricted from, say, being homosexual, because it's not in the best interests of society? Or their own best interests, whatever you may think them to be?
    Subject 1 (12:04:31 AM): or the mentally deficient from procreating?
    Subject 2 (12:04:33 AM): homosexuality doesnt affect society, i dont think its my business whatsoever
    Subject 2 (12:04:38 AM): mental deficiency isnt genetic
    Subject 2 (12:04:43 AM): and no, i dont believe in genetic cleansing
    Subject 1 (12:04:54 AM): sorry, it was meant to read genetically deficient
    Subject 2 (12:05:04 AM): see above
    Subject 2 (12:05:31 AM): ex-- arent we seeing the incredibly untapped talents of autism? which many people would choose to eradicate?
    Subject 2 (12:05:35 AM): or rather, beginning to see*
    Subject 2 (12:05:49 AM): i meant social aspects of health or status, mostly
    Subject 2 (12:05:56 AM): as in, you need a leg up, there are food stamps
    Subject 2 (12:06:13 AM): i dont believe in welfare as it stands, in that im slightly more republican, but i believe in the principle
    Subject 2 (12:06:14 AM): etc...
    Subject 2 (12:06:20 AM): but ive g2g to bed, we'll discuss this later

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)



  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2006
    7 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    interesting read. but i don't know anything about typing people so bleh.

    it's crazy reading a chat like that doesn't say something like...what are you wearing... you're only 13? you have a b/f?...have you ever watched To Catch a Predator on dateline NBC...a/s/

    hahaha, totally joking if for some reason my sarcasm was missed.

  4. #4
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka
    hahaha, totally joking if for some reason my sarcasm was missed.
    I hope the new disclaimers are not caused by me

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    7 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by cracka
    hahaha, totally joking if for some reason my sarcasm was missed.
    I hope the new disclaimers are not caused by me
    hahaha, not at all.

  6. #6
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Quote Originally Posted by cracka
    hahaha, totally joking if for some reason my sarcasm was missed.
    I hope the new disclaimers are not caused by me
    hahaha, not at all.

  7. #7
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    10 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    i don't have time to read posts that long. sorry.


    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  8. #8
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Not here
    2 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze8
    i don't have time to read posts that long. sorry.
    Ah, but you have time to reply to them saying you don't have enough time to read them?

    Ok, I didn't read all of it, but I read a bit.

    I must agree with stefana on both counts; in fact, I'll be more specific and guess subject 1 is an alpha NT. First guess ENTp. For some reason I'd guess ESFj on subject 2, but it's really just instinct, so probably worth a few grains of salt. EXFx at least, methinks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.

    I pity your souls

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    1 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if Subject 2 is an ESFj (I can't be sure, haven't physically interacted with the person in years), and I'm unsure about Subject 1, except that they're most likely NT.

    However, noone's ventured any relation guesses...
    (speaking of which, what's a good reference for the relations that's NOT in Russian - and I'm already aware of Rick's site)

    Also, I post the whole conversation so that whoever wanted to could read through it for more information, but it shouldn't take too long to get the gist of things.

Posting Permissions

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