Thread: @nti-dialectics Made Easy -- Thread Two

Results 141 to 160 of 507

  1. #141
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DeLeonist:

    Regardless of whether or not Marx is wrong here, I think the comment sheds light on this frequently discussed sentence of his:

    The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.
    Clearly, as Marx regards the Hegelian contradiction as the ‘source of all dialectic’, this sentence should be interpreted as meaning that Marx believed Hegel was the first to present the dialectic’s general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.
    I have covered this several times: Marx is right, "the mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner", what does prevent him is this:

    The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]
    You:

    Clearly, as Marx regards the Hegelian contradiction as the ‘source of all dialectic’, this sentence should be interpreted as meaning that Marx believed Hegel was the first to present the dialectic’s general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.
    Not so, as I pointed out, his distortion of ordinary language is what prevents him. This is not what happens in Aristotle, who is, by and large, an ordinary language philosopher. So, are the Scottish Historical Materialists -- can't say the same of Kant.

    It should not be interpreted as meaning that Marx believed there was something else that prevented Hegel from being the first to present it in such a manner.
    So you say, but, fortunately for us, Marx ended all speculation when he added a summary of the 'dialectic method' in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found -- hence, Hegel cannot have been the "first to present the dialectic’s general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner..."

    As discussed in the other thread, as Marx avowed himself a pupil of Hegel whilst working on Volume 1 of Capital during the same period that he coquetted with Hegelian language, the negative connotations of ‘coquetted’ do not carry much weight.
    And I have replied to that post. So I stand by my comments.

    In any case, what purpose would ‘merely coquetting’ serve in the context of the footnote criticising Mill and the vulgar economists?

    How could he (Spinoza and/or Marx) know that every 'determination is also a negation' (that is what this Latin clause means)? Did he examine every determination that has ever been attempted in human history, or will be determined, or could be determined?

    So, we either attribute to Marx some odd ideas, or we conclude he is still 'coquetting'.
    If these ideas are in fact odd, then I think it makes more sense to attribute some odd ideas to Marx than to rely on strained interpretations of what he wrote about his influences.
    Since they ignored the historical materialism of Aristotle, the Scottish School, and Kant.

    Now, I am not saying Marx wasn't influenced by Spinoza, and earlier theorists, or that Marx did not find this unreliable principle in Hegel, but that by no means implies he accepted Hegel's spin on it.
  2. #142
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Anyone who followed my debate with Andrew Kliman (on the nature of 'dialectical contradictions') in May, June and July will be happy to know that it has sparked to life again now that Andrew is back off holiday:

    http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org...ian-dialectic/
  3. #143
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Well, the above discussion has flared up considerably, with Dialectical Marxists and Idealists of every stripe pitching in -- all, you will no doubt notice saying more-or-less the same sorts of things that comrades here have said, but all -- you will no doubt also notice --, failing to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is!

    However, up to now, the debate has largely been comradely!
  4. #144
    Join Date May 2009
    Location Menstrual City, Ca.
    Posts 1,005
    Organisation
    Lacking in,
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Well, the above discussion has flared up considerably, with Dialectical Marxists and Idealists of every stripe pitching in -- all, you will no doubt notice saying more-or-less the same sorts of things that comrades here have said, but all -- you will no doubt also notice --, failing to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is!

    I understand it as the struggle of two or more seemingly opposite & contradictory forces eternally colliding and coming apart, each collision transforming one and the other, etc.

    Weird as it may sound, the simplest way I can visualize the dialectics is as an assembled strand of say, DNA. You know how the strand seems to come apart into to separate but parallel strings and at some point become linked?

  5. #145
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    New Tet:

    I understand it as the struggle of two or more seemingly opposite & contradictory forces eternally colliding and coming apart, each collision transforming one and the other, etc.
    Yes, but I have already shown that this can't work:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=464

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=465

    Just as I have shown that if this were the case, change would be impossible:

    Quotes:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

    Argument:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77

    Weird as it may sound, the simplest way I can visualize the dialectics is as an assembled strand of say, DNA. You know how the strand seems to come apart into to separate but parallel strings and at some point become linked?
    I am sorry, but I do not see how this analogy helps at all.
  6. #146
    Join Date May 2009
    Location Menstrual City, Ca.
    Posts 1,005
    Organisation
    Lacking in,
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    New Tet:



    Yes, but I have already shown that this can't work:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=464

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=465

    Just as I have shown that if this were the case, change would be impossible:

    Quotes:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

    Argument:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77



    I am sorry, but I do not see how this analogy helps at all.
    I'll have to admit that the analogy sucks a bozack.

    In one of the arguments linked above you mention 'classical' DM. Classical as opposed to what, historical materialism?

    I can live with that as long as it helps me explain social reality to myself and others. And by experience I know it does.
  7. #147
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    By "classical DM" I mean the theory laid down by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao and/or Trotsky. I do not mean Historical Materialism [HM], a theory I fully accept (but only if these Hegelian concepts -- upside down, or 'the right way up' -- have been completely excised ).

    And sure, HM does explain social reality, as you put it, but, the importation of dialectics in fact prevents it from doing this.
  8. #148
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Well, it looks like this discussion has petered out, and guess what: not one of these academic Marxist could tell me what a 'dialectical contradiction' is (although they did raise all manner of irrelevant issues, rather like the comrades here):

    http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org...ian-dialectic/

    So, the search goes on: is there no one on this planet who can tell us -- or do we have to begin a search in the outer fringes of the galaxy?
  9. #149
  10. #150
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 45
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Rosa
    Some interesting and lively jousting going on at the Marxist Humanist Initiative.

    But to return to your earlier comments, I think it is important not to conflate the issue of whether Marx was correct with what he meant:

    Clearly, as Marx regards the Hegelian contradiction as the ‘source of all dialectic’, this sentence should be interpreted as meaning that Marx believed Hegel was the first to present the dialectic’s general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.
    Not so, as I pointed out, his distortion of ordinary language is what prevents him. This is not what happens in Aristotle, who is, by and large, an ordinary language philosopher. So, are the Scottish Historical Materialists -- can't say the same of Kant.
    You may be right here, but this is not what Marx says or implies in Capital.

    It should not be interpreted as meaning that Marx believed there was something else that prevented Hegel from being the first to present it in such a manner.
    So you say, but, fortunately for us, Marx ended all speculation when he added a summary of the 'dialectic method' in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found -- hence, Hegel cannot have been the "first to present the dialectic’s general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner..."
    Marx tells us that his dialectical method is in its foundations exactly opposite to the Hegelian dialectical method, so it is not surprising that there are no overt Hegelian references in the summary of Marx‘s method (though this does not imply there were no Hegelian influences on it).

    It is also certainly debateable that there is “not one atom” of Hegelian influence to be found in the summary - eg “the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development and death of a given social organism and its replacement by another, higher one” is reminiscent of the processes of immanent self -development depicted (though in a idealistic form) in the Phenomenology of Mind.

    But even if there is not one atom of Hegel in the brief summary of his method, that Marx believed that his method was influenced by Hegel is evident by the fact that he considered the Hegelian contradiction the source of all dialectics.

    To escape this conclusion by interpreting this phrase as coquetting or sarcasm is not satisfactory. Marx is contrasting the absurd contradictions which Mill utilises with the Hegelian contradiction, which Mill cannot grasp. It would be a pointless remark if Marx was saying that Mill is equally at home with absurd and flat contradictions as he is at sea with absurd Hegelian contradictions.

    The mature Marx may have been wrong about Hegel and may even have overstated the influence of Hegel upon his method, but it seems hard to deny that he believed there was a ‘rational kernel’ within Hegel which he utilised.
  11. The Following User Says Thank You to DeLeonist For This Useful Post:


  12. #151
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DeLeonist:

    I think it is important not to conflate the issue of whether Marx was correct with what he meant
    I disagree. Marx is in the process of waving goodbye to the Hegelian way of seeing things, and returning to the scientific method laid down by Aristotle, modernised by the Scottish Historical Materialists. So, these errors are a clear indication of the last remaining areas of confusion in Marx's mind. And that is why the very best he could do was 'coquette' with Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital. In the 1860s he lacked the much more sophisticate logic and vocabulary we now have in this post-Fregean world. Marx did not have the means therefore to make a total break with Hegel; but we do. The footnote you place so much store by is a clear echo of this. Had Marx lived, he would have edited this out (as Engels did anyway), since it expressed a throwback to his earlier view of things.

    but this is not what Marx says or implies in Capital.
    Again, I disagree. It is clear that the only way that Hegel could make his ideas even appear to work was to use distorted language. The fact that Marx chose to 'coquette' with this very language is a clear echo of his view of Hegel expressed in The German Ideology -- this is Marx's way of dealing with Hegel's odd use of language. I do the same, but I do not 'coquette' with it; I use 'scare quotes', and, of course, I have access to the more sophisticated terminology only available to us since Frege revolutionised logic in the 1880s and 1890s.

    Marx tells us that his dialectical method is in its foundations exactly opposite to the Hegelian dialectical method, so it is not surprising that there are no overt Hegelian references in the summary of Marx‘s method (though this does not imply there were no Hegelian influences on it).
    I have already covered this. You can't get more opposite than to reject Hegel root and branch, returning to the dialectical method largely invented by Aristotle, modernised by the Scottish school.

    Sure, there is a Hegelian influence in Das Kapital. And Marx himself tells us what it is: he limited that influence to the use of Hegelian jargon with which he merely 'coquetted'.

    It is also certainly debateable that there is “not one atom” of Hegelian influence to be found in the summary - eg “the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development and death of a given social organism and its replacement by another, higher one” is reminiscent of the processes of immanent self -development depicted (though in a idealistic form) in the Phenomenology of Mind.
    Again, Marx helpfully ended all speculation in this regard, since he added a summary of the 'dialectic method' from which every trace of Hegel had been excised.

    But you offer this up as an example of Hegel's alleged influence:

    “the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development and death of a given social organism and its replacement by another, higher one” is reminiscent of the processes of immanent self -development depicted (though in a idealistic form) in the Phenomenology of Mind.
    Once more, I disagree. This is a clear reference to Aristotle's theory of the development of a biological organism applied to social development, as advocated by the Scottish school, a new materialist approach to knowledge invented long before Hegel was inflicted on humanity.

    But even if there is not one atom of Hegel in the brief summary of his method, that Marx believed that his method was influenced by Hegel is evident by the fact that he considered the Hegelian contradiction the source of all dialectics.
    And yet this comment is based on an unpublished footnote to the second volume of Das Kapital, which not even Engels could bring himself to publish! As I noted above, this reflects one of the errors I mentioned earlier (which is why Engels left it out, as Marx would have done), an echo of the way Marx was thinking in his transition phase between the Grundrisse and the first volume of Das Kapital.

    To escape this conclusion by interpreting this phrase as coquetting or sarcasm is not satisfactory. Marx is contrasting the absurd contradictions which Mill utilises with the Hegelian contradiction, which Mill cannot grasp. It would be a pointless remark if Marx was saying that Mill is equally at home with absurd and flat contradictions as he is at sea with absurd Hegelian contradictions.
    "Sarcasm" is your word, not mine, nor is it Marx's. Here is the passage you rest much of your case upon:

    He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction, the source of all dialectic. It has never occurred to the vulgar economist to make the simple reflexion, that every human action may be viewed, as "abstinence" from its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walking, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling, idling, abstinence from working, &c. These gentlemen would do well, to ponder, once in a way, over Spinoza’s: "Determinatio est Negatio."
    Since I have already covered this passage (above and in earlier posts) I will say no more about it, except: this was written before Marx told us he was 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital, a comment he published (in contrast to this one that not even Engels could bring himself to publish, even though it contained new remarks about Mill). Since Hegel's 'contradictions' are not the source of all dialectic, Greek theorists are, this passage would have been edited out (as indeed it was).

    The mature Marx may have been wrong about Hegel and may even have overstated the influence of Hegel upon his method, but it seems hard to deny that he believed there was a ‘rational kernel’ within Hegel which he utilised.
    Well, as I have pointed out many times, there is no 'rational kernel' to a method based on distorted Hegelian language, and that is why Marx felt he had to revive the older method invented by Aristotle (modernised by the Scottish school). Since Hegel had derived many of his ideas from Aristotle (mystifying and distorting them) and from the Scottish school (via Kant), then no wonder this 'rational kernel' contains no Hegel at all, but just Aristotle, Smith, Ferguson and Millar.

    How many more times to we have to go over this?
  13. #152
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Posts 3,750
    Organisation
    The Party
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    How can I be a dialectical mystic? The term sounds so cool.
    or: a Short History of 20th Century Marxist philosophy.

    Since I have already covered this passage (above and in earlier posts) I will say no more about it, except: this was written before Marx told us he was 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital, a comment he published (in contrast to this one that not even Engels could bring himself to publish, even though it contained new remarks about Mill).
    Wait, Engels didn't publish it? Because it seems to be in my version, as well as the MIA one.
  14. #153
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 45
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Had Marx lived, he would have edited this out (as Engels did anyway), since it expressed a throwback to his earlier view of things.
    Actually Marx did publish it, while he was alive, in Volume 1 of Capital (page 744 if you have the Penguin edition).

    Therefore, by your own logic, the footnote expresses the view of things he had when writing Capital.

    How many more times to we have to go over this?
    No need to go over it any more - but you've failed to convince me of your interpretation.
  15. #154
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ZeroNowhere:

    Wait, Engels didn't publish it? Because it seems to be in my version, as well as the MIA one.
    I am sorry, I relied on what DeLeonist said, and did not check it. I can't check my copy of Marx and Engels's Collected Works, since all 50 volumes are in storage (following on my recent move).

    Added on edit: I can now see this was my error, not his.

    I will, however, check the MIA -- do you have the exact link?

    -------------------------------

    This I have now done -- see my second reply to DeLeoinst below.
  16. #155
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DeLeonist:

    Actually Marx did publish it, while he was alive, in Volume 1 of Capital (page 744 if you have the Penguin edition).

    Therefore, by your own logic, the footnote expresses the view of things he had when writing Capital.
    I am sorry, but I thought you had said this wasn't actually published, and I was relying on that being accurate!

    As I pointed out to ZeroNowhere, above, most of my books are in storage, so I can't check what you say -- which is what I normally do.

    In fact, this is what you posted earlier:

    Hi Rosa,

    Given your interpretation above, I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on the following (from a message by Andrew Kliman here: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archiv...4/msg00029.htm):

    This is what Marx wrote about his relationship to Hegel, in a footnote
    in _Capital_, Vol. II:

    "In a review of the first volume of _Capital_, Mr. Duehring notes that,
    in my zealous devotion to the schema of Hegelian logic, I even discovered
    the Hegelian forms of the syllogism in the process of circulation. My
    relationship with Hegel is very simple. I am a disciple of Hegel, and
    the presumptuous chattering of the epigones who think they have buried
    this great thinker appear frankly ridiculous to me. Nevertheless, I have
    taken the liberty of adopting towards my master a critical attitude,
    disencumbering his dialectic of its mysticism and thus putting it through
    a profound change, etc."

    Engels left this out of the version of Vol. II he edited. It appears in
    Rubel's French edition. I have quoted from the English translation, in
    Raya Dunayevskaya's _Rosa Luxemburg, Women's Liberation, and Marx's
    Philosophy of Revolution_, p. 149. I do not know the exact date this
    passage was written, but Dunayevskaya (ibid.) notes that "Marx wrote this
    after volume 1 had already been published."
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=74

    Oddly enough, I had confused this with the other passage where Marx takes issue with Mill!

    My mistake; but I will get back to you when I have checked it.

    However, my reaction to this passage is that it is covered by what Marx said in the Postface, that he was merely 'coquetting' with Hegelian terminology here.

    I will, however, deal with the objections you raised against this interpretation once I have checked this pasage.
  17. #156
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Ok, I have checked this passage (I can't think why I did not do this before -- something I invariably do), anyway here is it:

    John St. Mill, on the contrary, accepts on the one hand Ricardo’s theory of profit, and annexes on the other hand Senior’s “remuneration of abstinence.” He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction, the source of all dialectic. It has never occurred to the vulgar economist to make the simple reftexion, that every human action may be viewed, as “abstinence” from its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walking, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling, idling, abstinence from working, &c. These gentlemen would do well, to ponder, once in a way, over Spinoza’s: “Determinatio est Negatio.”
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1/ch24.htm#n28

    The first thing to note is that this sentence is ambiguous:

    He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction, the source of all dialectic.
    You seem to think its meaning is obvious, that Marx is claiming that "Hegelian contradiction is the source of all dialectic", but this is not plausible, and for several reasons:

    1) Marx goes on to appeal to Spinoza's principle to illustrate the source of the dialectic:

    It has never occurred to the vulgar economist to make the simple reftexion, that every human action may be viewed, as “abstinence” from its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walking, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling, idling, abstinence from working, &c. These gentlemen would do well, to ponder, once in a way, over Spinoza’s: “Determinatio est Negatio.”
    which, of course, predated the invention of Hegel's supposed 'contradictions'. If so, Hegelian 'contradictions' can't be the source of all dialectic (as Marx is clearly indicated by quoting Spinoza). And, indeed, they aren't, for the dialectic originated in ancient Greece.

    2. The sentence itself gives us a clue as to Marx's intentions:

    He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction, the source of all dialectic.
    The final clause could refer back to this:

    as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction,
    or to this:

    He is as much at home in absurd contradictions
    or, what is far more likely, to this:

    He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the Hegelian contradiction,
    in other words Marx is alluding here to the sort of puzzlement that motivated the early Greeks to engage in dialectic (the pursuit of truth through argument and counter-argument), puzzlement that now surfaces in Mill's mind.

    And this interpretation is supported by point 1) above -- Marx appeals to the puzzling features of Spinoza's principle.

    So, far from Marx being guilty of a simple historical error (the claim that Hegel's contradictions are the source of all dialectic, which they plainly aren't), he is pointing out something much less controversial, that puzzlement is the source of the dialectic (in fact, this is a remarkably Wittgensteinian claim to make).

    In that case, I do not have to appeal to the 'coquetting' passage to explain Marx's use of 'contradiction' here, since he is alluding to this puzzling feature of Hegel's work, not endorsing it.

    Anyway, I can only thank you for forcing me to consider this passage again, since it lends support to my view that Marx anticipated Wittgenstein in many ways, this just being the latest example: that philosophy ('all dialectic') is motivated by puzzlement, and that the only legitimate role philosophy can play isn't to try to discover hidden truths that are unavailable to the sciences, but to unravel the puzzles we sometimes find ourselves in.
  18. #157
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I spoke too soon!

    http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org...ian-dialectic/

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=143

    No sooner had I written the above when an individual (who calls himself 'Juurrian') replied to an earlier response to him by me (comment 45). He quickly adopted the by-now-familiar lying, abusive and scatological mode of argument beloved of such mystics. I had up to that point been nothing but pleasant to him, which underlines the comment I made earlier:

    25 years (!!) of this from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language they used.
    Is there a single dialectician on the planet who can defend effectively the "world view of the proletariat"?

    And, who can do so without resorting to the usual abusive, irrational and emotional responses?
  19. #158
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Posts 3,750
    Organisation
    The Party
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Oh dear, academic-baiting. Though I do like the reference to Plato's philosopher-kings.
    And really, the best chance he (or so on) had there was comparing 'dialectical contradictions' to the word 'game'. Also, I like to collect oppositions and keep them in a jar.
  20. #159
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Me too!
  21. #160
    Join Date Sep 2009
    Posts 13
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    This seems like a very reflexive response. It seems, as you outlined in your Essay Twelve, that their sense of self-worth/commitment to the revolution is based on a certain idea(s) (given the state of the left what else do they have to base it on but an idea?). So, when you take a bat to the idea, they associate so strongly with it, that they think you are attacking their character.

    Very similar to psuedo-intellectuals when you challanges their 'ideas' or indoctrinated religious types when you challenge their 'beliefs' or 'faith'. This all seems strangely divorce of a marxist, scientific or even decent approach to 'progress'.

    Unfortunately this type of behavior extends well beyond Dialectics in the revolutionary left. With what seems to a semi-outsider as bunch of pissed off people, with a greater than thou attitude, all teething-at-the-bit to be the next Che, Mao, Lenin.

    I don't really understand which proletarians, those that are informed, think they are going to be communicating to...

    Thanks for your ongoing work Rosa. I certainly enjoy reading your posts and am about half-way through your essays and find the work clear, precise and convincing.

Similar Threads

  1. @nti-dialectics Made Easy
    By Rosa Lichtenstein in forum Theory
    Replies: 506
    Last Post: 6th March 2009, 22:54
  2. Dialectics made easy
    By peaccenicked in forum Theory
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 24th October 2007, 06:35

Posting Permissions

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

Tags for this Thread

Website Security Test