Thread: Dialectics: once and for all I need to know...

Results 21 to 40 of 118

  1. #21
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Eirigi:

    I think Rosa just doesn't understand dialectics.
    Well, I'm in good company then, since no one understands dialectics -- or if they do, they have kept that secret well hidden.

    It's not meant to be a mystical guide to the world, just a way of looking at events as processes. These debates around these ridiculous hypothetical situations like whether water boils or whether a rock is inherently 'dialectic' in a frozen space vacuum are ridiculous. Dialectics is useless unless applied, and only then to events or processes. Don't worry if you don't understand it completely, most people use dialectics without ever consciously realising it.
    Except, if true, it would make change impossible, as I have shown.

    Of course, if you can show where my argument goes astray, you can do so in the Mao thread in Philosophy:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theor...879/index.html
  2. #22
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    A R Amistad, quoting Miles (I hope you got his permission! He wouldn't let me quote a PM he sent me on dialectics):

    1. What is the main thesis statement of dialectics?

    Dialectics is a method of analyzing and understanding the development of things. It looks at the contradictions within an object to see how they interrelate and interact, and how that causes that object to move, grow, change and develop over time (this is its dynamic).

    I'm sure by now that you've had the three postulates of materialist dialectics explained. If not, let me know and we can talk about them, too.

    2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?

    Observation and analysis. Look and study the objects around you to see what its dynamics are. But do understand: sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system. Think of it like basic math and calculus; you can use calculus to solve "1 + 1 = x", but it's cumbersome and unnecessary. If more basic and elementary methods of understanding prove inadequate, then the dialectical method is probably more appropriate to use.

    3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

    Dialectics neither explains nor gives meaning. It simply shows us the reality of a thing. It is up to us as the observers and analysts to explain and give meaning to it.
    Taking these one at a time:

    Dialectics is a method of analyzing and understanding the development of things. It looks at the contradictions within an object to see how they interrelate and interact, and how that causes that object to move, grow, change and develop over time (this is its dynamic).
    A) The examples of 'contradictions' dialecticians refer us to turn out not to be contradictions, in the first place.

    B) But, even supposing they were, this approach to change would make it impossible. On that see the Mao thread in Philosophy:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theor...879/index.html

    2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?

    Observation and analysis. Look and study the objects around you to see what its dynamics are. But do understand: sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system. Think of it like basic math and calculus; you can use calculus to solve "1 + 1 = x", but it's cumbersome and unnecessary. If more basic and elementary methods of understanding prove inadequate, then the dialectical method is probably more appropriate to use.
    A) These are rather odd assertions. Mathematics is vastly more efficient at solving such problems than is 'dialectical logic'.

    B) In fact, I challenge Miles to solve a single mathematical problem 'dialectically', and quicker than the usual methods.

    3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

    Dialectics neither explains nor gives meaning. It simply shows us the reality of a thing. It is up to us as the observers and analysts to explain and give meaning to it.
    A) But what is the use of this theory of it can't explain anything? In fact, as Miles's first point reveals, he seeks to explain change by recourse to 'internal contradictions'.

    b) In fact, dialecticians like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used dialectics all the time to explain things. [Not that they did this very well, using this theory!]
  3. #23
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location Louisville KY
    Posts 894
    Organisation
    Socialist Action
    Rep Power 11

    Default

    My main point: "existence precedes essence" does not stand in total opposition to dialectics, or dialectical materialism, and maybe even the same can be said for anti-dialectics.
    "It is not enough to possess the sword, one must give it an edge it is not enough to give the sword an edge, one must know how to wield it."-L. Trotsky
  4. #24
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    AR Amistad:

    My main point: "existence precedes essence" does not stand in total opposition to dialectics, or dialectical materialism, and maybe even the same can be said for anti-dialectics.
    But, what does your point mean?

    And what has it got to do with dialectics?
  5. #25
    Join Date Apr 2005
    Location In Partibus Infidelium
    Posts 4,829
    Organisation
    Workers Party in America
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    (I hope you got his permission! He wouldn't let me quote a PM he sent me on dialectics):
    He's got it. You don't, and never will. Why? I don't like you.

    A) The examples of 'contradictions' dialecticians refer us to turn out not to be contradictions, in the first place.

    B) But, even supposing they were, this approach to change would make it impossible. On that see the Mao thread in Philosophy:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theor...879/index.html
    A) I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel. New person. New argument. Same goes for trying to pin Mao's "dialectics" on me.

    B) I think we've had the argument before about "contradictions" and "opposites", and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be. This is why I prefer to use the term "opposing forces" instead of "opposites".

    C) It is neither contradiction alone, nor motion alone, that causes transformational change. It's both in constant interaction over time that causes change. (This also gets to a point of yours below; it's not just internal, but both internal and external contradictions that have to be observed.)

    A) These are rather odd assertions. Mathematics is vastly more efficient at solving such problems than is 'dialectical logic'.

    B) In fact, I challenge Miles to solve a single mathematical problem 'dialectically', and quicker than the usual methods.
    Sigh. I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved in the last four-plus years (a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you). I specifically said: "sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system". I was never one to see materialist dialectics as a "catch-all" method, any more than I bought into the foolish idea that it is a standalone "science". Sure, you could overwork the system and spend untold time and energy using dialectics to find the sum of one plus one. But why, when there are more efficient means to solve such a basic problem? The method of materialist dialectics has its role in observing and understanding society, just as any other viable scientific methods of analysis do.

    A) But what is the use of this theory of it can't explain anything? In fact, as Miles's first point reveals, he seeks to explain change by recourse to 'internal contradictions'.

    B) In fact, dialecticians like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used dialectics all the time to explain things. [Not that they did this very well, using this theory!]
    A) Yes, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used something they called "dialectics", and left the world wanting. The same is true of virtually all of the 20th century's self-proclaimed "dialecticians". The problem is that they didn't understand Marx's views on materialist dialectics (which is partially Marx's fault, since it's not like he wrote a definitive guide or anything -- that, sadly, was left to Engels). Nevertheless, it was the individuals that did the explaining, based on what their observations showed them.

    B) Your problem, Rosa, is that you keep looking for the deus ex machina in every theory and methodology. Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed. But maybe you should take that as a hint to stop looking for a "god theory" to explain everything ... or thinking that every person who advocates the method of materialist dialectics was made in your "god's" image.
  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Martin Blank For This Useful Post:


  7. #26
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Location UK
    Posts 1,209
    Rep Power 21

    Default

    But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

    *There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.
    Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
  8. #27
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location New York City
    Posts 4,407
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

    *There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.
    No you are not off the track. "The rational kernel" that Marx extracts is the recognition that Hegel in his writings on spirit, on consciousness, on being and becoming, is attempting to come to grips with the real content of history.

    Feuerbach [here comes a radical simplification] argues essentially that the real content of history is human beings, human beings in nature.

    Marx, "crosses that brook of fire," arguing that it is not the world of nature and the laws of nature that we confront in the apprehension, or attempted apprehension of history, it is the world of men and women-- it is the world created by men and women as species-beings, i.e. as social beings.

    The "dialectic," the contradictions, the opposing forces [and I think Miles is spot one in opting for the description "opposing forces," is/are in the social organization of labor.

    Marx finds the source of the development of capital, and the contradictions of capitalist development in that fundamental social relation of capital-- the organization of labor as wage-labor, which is labor existing in a form where the very conditions of labor [the society] are determined by the means of production existing as private property. Thus labor and the conditions of labor oppose each other. Capital exists as the expropriation, the aggrandizement of surplus value, surplus value being the product of this "de-formation" of labor as wage-labor exchanging itself with the capitalist's means of production in order to obtain access to food, clothing, shelter etc.-- in short in order to reproduce itself once again as wage-labor, where it must again exchange itself, sell itself, in order to survive.

    It is from this primary opposition, between labor and its "condition of employment" that the contradiction of value are generated; that the means of production at a certain point are developed beyond the capability of the relations of production, private property; that the very accumulation of surplus value in the mode of production, returning as expanded means of production undermines profit and profitability, which is the source of accumulation.

    Through the development of the means of production, which capitalism undertakes to increase the accumulation of surplus value, the foundation is created for the abolition of capitalism in total.
  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to S.Artesian For This Useful Post:


  10. #28
    Join Date Apr 2005
    Location In Partibus Infidelium
    Posts 4,829
    Organisation
    Workers Party in America
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

    *There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.
    Don't take this the wrong way, but, yes, that's an incredibly simple one. It's so simple that you really don't need dialectics to see that one. A simple review of history shows a pattern that develops out of the contradictions of a class society. Where dialectics becomes valuable is when you move past this to observing development and dynamics.

    It's one thing to understand that classes will conflict and that will eventually lead to an abstract change. It's another thing to be able to look at the development of each of the elements in class society -- the composition and consciousness of classes, their relations to each other, their relations to the mode of production, the state of the mode of the production and productive forces, how these have influenced and affected the political situation (and vice versa), the effects these have had on culture (and vice versa), and so on -- and see how they interact with each other. This is where materialist dialectics has its value.

    The method of materialist dialectics lets the observer and analyst look at these different elements, not as separate parts, but as an integral whole -- the opposing forces that create contradictions, how those contradictions foment motion, how the changing contradictions resulting from motion affect that motion, how this ongoing interaction and movement over time results in incremental and fundamental change, how one set of changes can negate a previous set of changes and move things to another level. Done correctly, the observer can not only correctly see what has happened, but can extrapolate a hypothesis of what will happen by abstracting out the dynamics (some of us refer to this as "telescoping").

    Modern computer science is trying to catch up to this by attempting to apply chaos theory to statistical analysis. Eventually, armed with the right formulas and a knowledge of SPSS, much of what is done "analog" could be done with the press of a few buttons.

    When we use the method of materialist dialectics, it is often for analyzing the development of the economic and political situations. We've been successful in our use of the method over the years, including in instances when we "telescoped" to see what was coming. But it also helps to see broader issues, like the development of class relations vis-à-vis development of the mode of production or the level of class consciousness (and the barriers standing in the further development thereof) in a society.

    In the end, though, dialectics is a method of analysis -- nothing more. The "human factor" plays the crucial role in regards to how it is used ... or misused.
  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Martin Blank For This Useful Post:


  12. #29
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Miles:

    A) I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel. New person. New argument. Same goes for trying to pin Mao's "dialectics" on me.
    Still too scared to take me on, so you resort to abuse once more, I see.

    B) I think we've had the argument before about "contradictions" and "opposites", and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be. This is why I prefer to use the term "opposing forces" instead of "opposites".
    But opposing forces can't be contradictions either. Unless, of course, you are using "contradiction" in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?

    and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be.
    Well, I just quote the Dialectical Holy Books, so pick a fight with them, not me.

    C) It is neither contradiction alone, nor motion alone, that causes transformational change. It's both in constant interaction over time that causes change. (This also gets to a point of yours below; it's not just internal, but both internal and external contradictions that have to be observed.)
    Even so, as I have shown (but you are too lazy to read it -- in fact, the core argument is only a few hundred words long!), this still makes change impossible.


    Sigh. I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved in the last four-plus years (a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you).
    Well, your writing 'skills' are to blame here, as we will see.

    I specifically said: "sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system".
    And where did I deny you said this?

    I was never one to see materialist dialectics as a "catch-all" method, any more than I bought into the foolish idea that it is a standalone "science". Sure, you could overwork the system and spend untold time and energy using dialectics to find the sum of one plus one. But why, when there are more efficient means to solve such a basic problem? The method of materialist dialectics has its role in observing and understanding society, just as any other viable scientific methods of analysis do.
    Go on then let's see you apply this 'theory'/'method' to one problem that shows that a historical materialist answer (minus the gobbledygook you mystics dote upon) is inferior. Indeed, choose just one example that shows this 'superfine method' of yours is capable of handling anything at all.

    You (and other mystics who post here) have been asked this several times before, but you always go rather quiet...

    Wonder why?

    And. you have yet to show us how 'dialectics' can solve just one mathematical problem, let alone do this better than the usual methods us mathematicians use.

    (a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you)
    Why the present tense? I finished those studies nearly 30 years ago.

    But, a fat lot of good this 'theory' has done you. How massive is that huge party of yours? And a fat lot of good it has done the international revolutionary movement. Dialectical Marxism is a long-term and abject failure. But you lot still cling to it like the medievals clung to Ptolemy's system.

    A) Yes, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used something they called "dialectics", and left the world wanting. The same is true of virtually all of the 20th century's self-proclaimed "dialecticians". The problem is that they didn't understand Marx's views on materialist dialectics (which is partially Marx's fault, since it's not like he wrote a definitive guide or anything -- that, sadly, was left to Engels). Nevertheless, it was the individuals that did the explaining, based on what their observations showed them.
    So, let me get this straight: you are the only dialectician on the planet who is in direct contact with self-developing 'Being', and thus who understands this Hermetic 'theory' aright, eh? I'm sorry, I'll take my shoes off in your presence in future .

    One small problem, you are so far in advance of us mere mortals that you seem totally incapable of explaining these semi-divine truths to us. We are still waiting for you to explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.

    B) Your problem, Rosa, is that you keep looking for the deus ex machina in every theory and methodology. Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed. But maybe you should take that as a hint to stop looking for a "god theory" to explain everything ... or thinking that every person who advocates the method of materialist dialectics was made in your "god's" image.
    Not so, and once more, I just quote the Dialectical Gospels, and draw out the absurd consequences. Apart from a few paragraphs of flowery rhetoric, and no little and abuse, you have yet to show where I go wrong.

    I'm beginning to suspect you can't...

    Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed.
    What has this got to do with anything? In fact, like you, they are fans of this Hermetic theory, too -- which, also like you, they can't explain, either. If they are screw ups, and your massive party is too, then the common element is this 'theory'.

    Unless, of course, your huge, whopping party is a success...
  13. #30
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    'Comrade' Artesian:

    No you are not off the track. "The rational kernel" that Marx extracts is the recognition that Hegel in his writings on spirit, on consciousness, on being and becoming, is attempting to come to grips with the real content of history
    But, we have already established (in the "Anti-Dialectics Made Easy,Thread 2" in Philosophy), that by the time Marx came to write Das Kapital, he had waved 'goodbye' to all this Hegelian giff (upside down or 'the right way up').

    And, you keep helping yourself to the word "contradiction" when it turns out that the things you say are contradictions manifestly are not.

    No wonder Marx merely "coquetted" with this word in Das Kapital.
  14. #31
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Miles:

    A simple review of history shows a pattern that develops out of the contradictions of a class society. Where dialectics becomes valuable is when you move past this to observing development and dynamics.
    But the sort of things you quote aren't contradictions to begin with, so how can capitalism develop this way?
  15. #32
    Join Date Apr 2005
    Location In Partibus Infidelium
    Posts 4,829
    Organisation
    Workers Party in America
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Still too scared to take me on, so you resort to abuse once more, I see.
    Sigh! Honestly, Rosa, do you really think that this is how you have to act when dealing with other self-described socialists and communists? Seriously! It's off-putting and tiring, and makes it so I don't even want to waste my time responding to you, because it wouldn't matter what I say. It would be just like talking to a brick wall, and it just makes you seem like a troll.

    I'm saying this sincerely, Rosa. You need to let go of this obnoxious veneer you seem to think you need when you're engaged in a political discussion. I'm confident enough in my own understanding and advocacy of materialist dialectics that I don't have to jump at your petty sniping. It's unfortunate that you cannot say or act the same -- that you cannot actually be open-minded enough to have an honest and comradely conversation with someone you disagree with.

    It makes me think that you fear your own hermetically-sealed metaphysical house of cards will come crashing down if you do.

    Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.
  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Martin Blank For This Useful Post:


  17. #33
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,291
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    instead of wasting time reading the deadweight of old dead white men that made a living of smoothtalking (hegel) read lewis carroll, the dadaists, the surrealists etcetera, there nonsense rhyming and bombastic nothing is atleast fun and beautiful.

    marx grew up in german idealism and he was a product of his time. in the same sense he called lasalle a nigger and supported the american side of the mexican american war under the premise that mexicans "are lazy".
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to black magick hustla For This Useful Post:


  19. #34
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location New York City
    Posts 4,407
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    instead of wasting time reading the deadweight of old dead white men that made a living of smoothtalking (hegel) read lewis carroll, the dadaists, the surrealists etcetera, there nonsense rhyming and bombastic nothing is atleast fun and beautiful.

    marx grew up in german idealism and he was a product of his time. in the same sense he called lasalle a nigger and supported the american side of the mexican american war under the premise that mexicans "are lazy".

    And Isidore Ducasse, what did he suport?
  20. #35
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location New York City
    Posts 4,407
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.
    Don't hold your breath, comrade.
  21. The Following User Says Thank You to S.Artesian For This Useful Post:


  22. #36
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Miles:

    Sigh! Honestly, Rosa, do you really think that this is how you have to act when dealing with other self-described socialists and communists? Seriously! It's off-putting and tiring, and makes it so I don't even want to waste my time responding to you, because it wouldn't matter what I say. It would be just like talking to a brick wall, and it just makes you seem like a troll.

    I'm saying this sincerely, Rosa. You need to let go of this obnoxious veneer you seem to think you need when you're engaged in a political discussion. I'm confident enough in my own understanding and advocacy of materialist dialectics that I don't have to jump at your petty sniping. It's unfortunate that you cannot say or act the same -- that you cannot actually be open-minded enough to have an honest and comradely conversation with someone you disagree with.

    It makes me think that you fear your own hermetically-sealed metaphysical house of cards will come crashing down if you do.

    Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.
    What do you expect when all you ever post about my ideas is stuff like this?

    I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel.
    And you have been doing this for nearly five years. In that case, it seems that you can treat me with disrespect, but I have to be all sweetness and light in return.

    You regularly substitute abuse for argument, but somehow you expect me either to desist from arguing, or to rise above the bile you constantly pour out.

    Well, you have chosen the wrong girl, sonny.

    You either treat me with respect, or you can look forward to another five years of this.
  23. #37
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,291
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    And Isidore Ducasse, what did he suport?
    idk he died when he was 24. but left something beautiful
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  24. #38
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location New York City
    Posts 4,407
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    idk he died when he was 24. but left something beautiful
    Yes, and Engels "rejoiced" in 1847 in the US conquest of Mexican territory, and in 1861 Marx "reversed" that describing the war as wage in the interests of the slaveholding South.
  25. #39
    Global Moderator Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Jul 2006
    Location Toronto
    Posts 4,186
    Organisation
    NOTA
    Rep Power 62

    Default

    What do you expect when all you ever post about my ideas is stuff like this?
    It has nothing to do with your ideas. It has everything to do with the rude and tedious and belligerent way you hammer at people.

    You're interesting when you talk about real stuff but your philosophic interventions are dull dull dull.
  26. #40
    Join Date Apr 2005
    Location In Partibus Infidelium
    Posts 4,829
    Organisation
    Workers Party in America
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You either treat me with respect, or you can look forward to another five years of this.
    Respect is earned, not given. And, yes, it's a two-way street. I'll treat you with respect if you start treating everyone else, including me, with respect. Otherwise, expect another five years of me ignoring you. You had your chance.
  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Martin Blank For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. dialectics/anti-dialectics and history
    By Louise Michel in forum Theory
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 1st April 2009, 16:48
  2. About the third law of dialectics
    By Kitskits in forum Learning
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th December 2007, 11:49
  3. dialectics
    By sukirti in forum Theory
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 24th March 2006, 07:59
  4. Dialectics
    By Ligeia in forum Learning
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 6th February 2006, 16:55

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