Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Look at your URL. It's borked. The "feature player embed" part is before the code for the video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ah, yeah, now I see it. Well, I'll have to remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Click the "share' button and just c/p the code it gives there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MasterDex Posted February 17, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yant, I know it seems that we're constantly at odds..and we kind of are, but I have to call you out on using Modern Family as an example of "liberal media pushing an agenda". Is Modern Family liberal media? Yeah, of course it is. It's a show where an old man is married to a woman younger than his daughter, where his son is married to another man and both of them are raising an adopted asian child. But, it's not pushing any agenda. What it's doing is the same thing that many, many sitcoms have done throughout time - reflecting a piece of the world that we live in. It doesn't send out any messages that being gay and adopting foreign children are the best things in the world, etc. it just reflects the type of life that many people, both conservative and liberal have with their families. That you equate its portrayal of a Modern Family with pushing a liberal agenda is a problem of your own making - from your own insecurities, I'm willing to wager. As for evolution being taught in schools and being generally accepted as factual. Well, that's because most of the evidence that's used to prove evolution is a very real process is factual. Let's take the dog breeding that was mentioned earlier. The reason we have so many different breeds of dogs is that, even before we knew of evolution, we realised that we could breed different types of dogs together to achieve desirable results.The Bulldog, German Shepard, Japanese Akita, Greyhound, etc were all bred over and over again to strengthen their most favourable traits (which unfortunately doubled up thier least favourable ones too, but thats inbreeding for you). To take another example of evolution in action, there are now children born without appendices and on the same note, born without wisdom teeth - both are vestiges of our raw meat eating, leaf digesting ancestors. I noticed you also ignored the article about elephants being born without tusks. As has been said already, if you're going to dismiss evolution, dismiss it by showing us evidence that itself dismisses the theory, and please address your thoughts on the evidence we've presented that strengthens the theory. Finally, the biggest reason that the bible and other religious texts were questioned so little until recently (though they have always been questioned, by other religions and wise men) was because the cost of such a "liberal agenda" was often your life, or just your livelihood, if you were lucky enough. Even today, non-believers and followers of other faiths are chastised, punished and killed for their beliefs - by people claiming to be christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Even now, as a man from a Catholic family, I keep my religious beliefs or lack thereof from most of my greater family. I even recall one census year with my father filling out the forms asking us all to answer the questions and when it got to the religion question, my response of "I'm an Athiest" received a comeback of "There's no room in the foxhole for an athiest" from my father. There is still a massive disparity between people pushing a secular/liberal/athiest agenda and those pushing a religious/conservative/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc/etc/etc/ agenda. If you ignore that so you can cry persecution then you do so at the cost of any cogency you may have had. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Yant, I know it seems that we're constantly at odds..and we kind of are, but I have to call you out on using Modern Family as an example of "liberal media pushing an agenda". Is Modern Family liberal media? Yeah, of course it is. It's a show where an old man is married to a woman younger than his daughter, where his son is married to another man and both of them are raising an adopted asian child. But, it's not pushing any agenda. What it's doing is the same thing that many, many sitcoms have done throughout time - reflecting a piece of the world that we live in. It doesn't send out any messages that being gay and adopting foreign children are the best things in the world, etc. it just reflects the type of life that many people, both conservative and liberal have with their families. That you equate its portrayal of a Modern Family with pushing a liberal agenda is a problem of your own making - from your own insecurities, I'm willing to wager. What Modern Family pushes is a message of "our family is different and wacky and you think it's funny but it's every bit as equal and good as your family." That's a liberal message one which evangelical Christians would not agree with. The fact that you don't see that as the message of the show is a reflection of your own bias. As for evolution being taught in schools and being generally accepted as factual. Well, that's because most of the evidence that's used to prove evolution is a very real process is factual. Let's take the dog breeding that was mentioned earlier. The reason we have so many different breeds of dogs is that, even before we knew of evolution, we realised that we could breed different types of dogs together to achieve desirable results.The Bulldog, German Shepard, Japanese Akita, Greyhound, etc were all bred over and over again to strengthen their most favourable traits (which unfortunately doubled up thier least favourable ones too, but thats inbreeding for you). To take another example of evolution in action, there are now children born without appendices and on the same note, born without wisdom teeth - both are vestiges of our raw meat eating, leaf digesting ancestors. I noticed you also ignored the article about elephants being born without tusks. As has been said already, if you're going to dismiss evolution, dismiss it by showing us evidence that itself dismisses the theory, and please address your thoughts on the evidence we've presented that strengthens the theory. Well again, there have been many good scientific books written on the subject providing evidence. The things you're referring to are examples of adaptation or if you must use the term, microevolution. It's all changes within a species. Also, breeding dogs has not been something that's really increased the effectiveness of the species. Bred dogs are less intelligent than wolves and other wild animals and pure breed dogs specifically have many more health issues. Also as far as the elephants without tusks go that would be an example of jumping to conclusions. Finally, the biggest reason that the bible and other religious texts were questioned so little until recently (though they have always been questioned, by other religions and wise men) was because the cost of such a "liberal agenda" was often your life, or just your livelihood, if you were lucky enough. Even today, non-believers and followers of other faiths are chastised, punished and killed for their beliefs - by people claiming to be christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Even now, as a man from a Catholic family, I keep my religious beliefs or lack thereof from most of my greater family. I even recall one census year with my father filling out the forms asking us all to answer the questions and when it got to the religion question, my response of "I'm an Athiest" received a comeback of "There's no room in the foxhole for an athiest" from my father. There is still a massive disparity between people pushing a secular/liberal/athiest agenda and those pushing a religious/conservative/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc/etc/etc/ agenda. If you ignore that so you can cry persecution then you do so at the cost of any cogency you may have had. Any faith can be distorted and used for evil. I agree with you on this. Everyone is pushing there own agenda too. I agree with this as well. My point was that it's false to say that only christians push their beliefs on others (clearly shown from this thread and the US politics thread). I mean I saw many many people telling me that I need to mind my own business but they weren't exactly minding their own business by telling me to mind my own business and now I'm not minding my own business by telling them that telling me that minding my own business is oh I don't even know what is going on anymore.... @6264: I didn't forget about you, just been too busy to prepare a good response. Don't worry, it's coming. Edited February 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Miceo-evolution? For reals? Somehow, I kind of thought better of you, but I guess that's foolish. We have fossil records that show evolution over long time, nullifying the mico-evolution cop-out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yant, I know it seems that we're constantly at odds..and we kind of are, but I have to call you out on using Modern Family as an example of "liberal media pushing an agenda". Is Modern Family liberal media? Yeah, of course it is. It's a show where an old man is married to a woman younger than his daughter, where his son is married to another man and both of them are raising an adopted asian child. But, it's not pushing any agenda. What it's doing is the same thing that many, many sitcoms have done throughout time - reflecting a piece of the world that we live in. It doesn't send out any messages that being gay and adopting foreign children are the best things in the world, etc. it just reflects the type of life that many people, both conservative and liberal have with their families. That you equate its portrayal of a Modern Family with pushing a liberal agenda is a problem of your own making - from your own insecurities, I'm willing to wager. What Modern Family pushes is a message of "our family is different and wacky and you think it's funny but it's every bit as equal and good as your family." That's a liberal message one which evangelical Christians would not agree with. The fact that you don't see that as the message of the show is a reflection of your own bias. As for evolution being taught in schools and being generally accepted as factual. Well, that's because most of the evidence that's used to prove evolution is a very real process is factual. Let's take the dog breeding that was mentioned earlier. The reason we have so many different breeds of dogs is that, even before we knew of evolution, we realised that we could breed different types of dogs together to achieve desirable results.The Bulldog, German Shepard, Japanese Akita, Greyhound, etc were all bred over and over again to strengthen their most favourable traits (which unfortunately doubled up thier least favourable ones too, but thats inbreeding for you). To take another example of evolution in action, there are now children born without appendices and on the same note, born without wisdom teeth - both are vestiges of our raw meat eating, leaf digesting ancestors. I noticed you also ignored the article about elephants being born without tusks. As has been said already, if you're going to dismiss evolution, dismiss it by showing us evidence that itself dismisses the theory, and please address your thoughts on the evidence we've presented that strengthens the theory. Well again, there have been many good scientific books written on the subject providing evidence. The things you're referring to are examples of adaptation or if you must use the term, microevolution. It's all changes within a species. Also, breeding dogs has not been something that's really increased the effectiveness of the species. Bred dogs are less intelligent than wolves and other wild animals and pure breed dogs specifically have many more health issues. Also as far as the elephants without tusks go that would be an example of jumping to conclusions. Finally, the biggest reason that the bible and other religious texts were questioned so little until recently (though they have always been questioned, by other religions and wise men) was because the cost of such a "liberal agenda" was often your life, or just your livelihood, if you were lucky enough. Even today, non-believers and followers of other faiths are chastised, punished and killed for their beliefs - by people claiming to be christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Even now, as a man from a Catholic family, I keep my religious beliefs or lack thereof from most of my greater family. I even recall one census year with my father filling out the forms asking us all to answer the questions and when it got to the religion question, my response of "I'm an Athiest" received a comeback of "There's no room in the foxhole for an athiest" from my father. There is still a massive disparity between people pushing a secular/liberal/athiest agenda and those pushing a religious/conservative/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc/etc/etc/ agenda. If you ignore that so you can cry persecution then you do so at the cost of any cogency you may have had. Any faith can be distorted and used for evil. I agree with you on this. Everyone is pushing there own agenda too. I agree with this as well. My point was that it's false to say that only christians push their beliefs on others (clearly shown from this thread and the US politics thread). I mean I saw many many people telling me that I need to mind my own business but they weren't exactly minding their own business by telling me to mind my own business and now I'm not minding my own business by telling them that telling me that minding my own business is oh I don't even know what is going on anymore.... @6264: I didn't forget about you, just been too busy to prepare a good response. Don't worry, it's coming. Yes, that's the message of the show, but it's fair from a "liberal" bias. If anything, it's an intellectual bias, and if there's one trend I've been seeing over and over again in the conservative, evangelical sector recently, it's been a frightening strain of anti-intellectualism. Children and adults are being taught that it's preferable to be stupid and left to their own prejudices, and it's not only sad but also a big warning light that should be flashing throughout the nation. People are too afraid to go out and educate themselves properly because they're worried some bearded man in the clouds will smite them for thinking differently. It pains me to see people like that, because I know that if there were some way to free them from their shackles, they would not only become more productive members of society (ending the aggressive bullying of people who are different and focusing on progress, not keeping some book of outdated rules sacred), but they would also be happier people in the end. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Again, you're reading a lot of motivations into my statement and jumping to many conclusions which are not true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Again, you're reading a lot of motivations into my statement and jumping to many conclusions which are not true. How else are you supposed to take Modern Family being dismissed as some sort of propaganda? I can't find anything in the show that would upset evangelical Christians other than having a gay couple and an interracial family, and both of those are completely fine things. I feel like some people just wish that human progression ended at "I Love Lucy", but unfortunately for them, that's not how reality works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I can't find anything in the show that would upset evangelical Christians other than having a gay couple and an interracial family, and both of those are completely fine things. Just because it comports with your views (and mine) doesn't make it unbiased. You think those things are fine, I think those things are fine, other people do not think those things are fine, the show obviously thinks those things are fine, so the show is biased in favor of our views. Just like I'm biased toward liking a show like that as opposed to something like Seventh Heaven. Everyone's biased in some way, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It only becomes bad if you become unable to recognize your own biases. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Well again, there have been many good scientific books written on the subject providing evidence. The things you're referring to are examples of adaptation or if you must use the term, microevolution. It's all changes within a species. Also, breeding dogs has not been something that's really increased the effectiveness of the species. Bred dogs are less intelligent than wolves and other wild animals and pure breed dogs specifically have many more health issues. Also as far as the elephants without tusks go that would be an example of jumping to conclusions. You do know why we bred dogs right? It's because the original wolf was far too unruly to use, a dog however is pretty happy to hang out alongside humans. So yes, they're much more effective. However that's not always how evolution works. (dogs are a man-made species for one). It's simply a case of whatever allows a species to survive, and thus pass on its genes. Tusks are useful for an elephant, they allow it to dig up roots to eat. However those with tusks are killed for the tusks while those without tusks are left alone. Tusk-less elephants then mange to mate and pass on the genes of "no tusks" to the young, and it spreads. Evolution at work. (I can't really debate on Modern Family since I've not seen it. Does kinda show some issues though in that political terms of "liberal" are brought up when discussing religion) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Evolution doesn't favor things that are "better", it's just a result of certain traits being successful. Dogs that had traits humans liked have been pretty damn successful. If humans were to be suddenly gone those traits would not be nearly as beneficial to their survival, and many many dogs would die out, leaving those that were sufficiently suited to the new environment to be able to continue reproducing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 In regards to bias: everyone is biased in these societal and moral matters. Every tv show is biased because it's written by people. And that's fine. We're not machines and never will be. The same imperfections which cause us to view the world differently from each others is at the very core of all the good things about humanity as well as the bad. /Ramblings What I'm trying to say is that that's ok. I think though that you don't have the right to point fingers and complain about how offensive these tv shows are unless they are doing something extreme like preaching oppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 You don't have the right to complain? Or you should choose not to exercise that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Sorry, wrong word. Yeah, you have the right, but I think it's silly to do so considering you're probabåy just as biased yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Okay, just making sure. Sometimes it seems like Americans are bigger on the idea of free expression than Europeans. (That's one of my biases.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I wonder how many people remember that Mendel, the father of genetics, was a Friar. I wouldn't say dogs are a man-made species per se but rather human directed species. Evolution works in that what is successful for procreation and enables to species to survive in an environment is what it's survival nature tries to focus on for the next generation. For instance the whole coming into existence of mammals. Every other family lays eggs (oviparous) and doesn't give live birth. This was because in most of those organisms, the baby would be seen as a foreign body that was attacking the host (mother) and if the baby were to be formed inside the mother it would be killed by the mother's antibodies. However there was a viral infection (and there's proof of this btw) that allowed for mammals to have their young grow inside of them. Here are other fun indicators of human evolution - breasts. In a lot of mammals the butt is the focus of male sexual attraction. When humans started to walk erect the butt isn't something that would be seen so the breasts evolved in order to excite the males. You see if the sole function of the breasts was to feed the babies then the nipples would be much more elongated but instead the stronger purpose of the breast is to attract males. If you were wondering yes Cleavage = buttcrack in evolutionary terms. Similarly with lips, they are meant to be red and prominent this is where the skintones play an important part because the DNA expresses itself such that if your natural skintone is darker your lips would be more protuded for women so as to show that they have a healthy area down there. (I know I often tell this, but skincolour isn't hereditary; the amusing thing is we assumed so till the late 90s In fact it was present even in my scientific texts and the whole abcABC aspect and then in 2002 or so they found out that colour isn't hereditary and that it's just the gene expression in relation to the environment). Also in all honesty technically the human physiology works that men should be the ones wearing high heels. Most men do have much better legs than women naturally. Women need to mostly work out to get the shape and tonality which occurs in many men naturally. It's something that I came to found out during my human physiology and art classes and got confirmed by my anthropologist friend. Of course society won't accept it, that's a different story. Just like modern society is going to say pink is for girls and blue for boys when it was the reverse in the 1800s. All animals that we domesticate have adapted themselves to being preferred by us either by choice or because we killed the others. So obviously the ones that lived were the ones that showed traits that we liked. No species is man-made just human-directed. For instance if all humans were to die out, the most natural predator would be the cat which no longer confined to human households would grow to the same size as the big cats. Dogs already do exhibit pack behaviour like wolves - the thing right now is their pack is your family unit. Take the humans out of the equation and over time many dogs will revert and regress to their origins. There are species that might not make it but a good majority would. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm all for personal liberties until the point where you're doing tangible harm to other people. Can't speak for Europe as a whole though. To give a rough idea, I'm for heavy gun control but also heavily for freedom of speech. Though let's take this in the politics threads... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Here are other fun indicators of human evolution - breasts. In a lot of mammals the butt is the focus of male sexual attraction. When humans started to walk erect the butt isn't something that would be seen so the breasts evolved in order to excite the males. You see if the sole function of the breasts was to feed the babies then the nipples would be much more elongated but instead the stronger purpose of the breast is to attract males. If you were wondering yes Cleavage = buttcrack in evolutionary terms. Similarly with lips, they are meant to be red and prominent this is where the skintones play an important part because the DNA expresses itself such that if your natural skintone is darker your lips would be more protuded for women so as to show that they have a healthy area down there. (I know I often tell this, but skincolour isn't hereditary; the amusing thing is we assumed so till the late 90s In fact it was present even in my scientific texts and the whole abcABC aspect and then in 2002 or so they found out that colour isn't hereditary and that it's just the gene expression in relation to the environment). Also in all honesty technically the human physiology works that men should be the ones wearing high heels. Most men do have much better legs than women naturally. Women need to mostly work out to get the shape and tonality which occurs in many men naturally. It's something that I came to found out during my human physiology and art classes and got confirmed by my anthropologist friend. Of course society won't accept it, that's a different story. Just like modern society is going to say pink is for girls and blue for boys when it was the reverse in the 1800s See, this is a prime example of jumping to a conclusion and presenting it as factual evidence. You're basically stating that animals like butts and men like boobs and therefore it must be a product of evolution. Your supporting "evidence" is the comparison that clevage looks like a butt crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Why anyone is even bothering with this hypocritical, blind, purposefully ignorant person, is beyond me. The fact that Yantelope can take a well thought out few paragraphs and just throw them away without refuting anything and disregarding what others say for the vaguest of reason is proof enough that he can't be swayed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) His statement is a classical logical fallacy. It's the same as saying sharks eat more surfers than farmers so clearly sharks like the taste of surfers more. Edited February 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Here are other fun indicators of human evolution - breasts. In a lot of mammals the butt is the focus of male sexual attraction. When humans started to walk erect the butt isn't something that would be seen so the breasts evolved in order to excite the males. You see if the sole function of the breasts was to feed the babies then the nipples would be much more elongated but instead the stronger purpose of the breast is to attract males. If you were wondering yes Cleavage = buttcrack in evolutionary terms. Similarly with lips, they are meant to be red and prominent this is where the skintones play an important part because the DNA expresses itself such that if your natural skintone is darker your lips would be more protuded for women so as to show that they have a healthy area down there. (I know I often tell this, but skincolour isn't hereditary; the amusing thing is we assumed so till the late 90s In fact it was present even in my scientific texts and the whole abcABC aspect and then in 2002 or so they found out that colour isn't hereditary and that it's just the gene expression in relation to the environment). Also in all honesty technically the human physiology works that men should be the ones wearing high heels. Most men do have much better legs than women naturally. Women need to mostly work out to get the shape and tonality which occurs in many men naturally. It's something that I came to found out during my human physiology and art classes and got confirmed by my anthropologist friend. Of course society won't accept it, that's a different story. Just like modern society is going to say pink is for girls and blue for boys when it was the reverse in the 1800s See, this is a prime example of jumping to a conclusion and presenting it as factual evidence. You're basically stating that animals like butts and men like boobs and therefore it must be a product of evolution. Your supporting "evidence" is the comparison that clevage looks like a butt crack. It's not just "jumping to a conclusion". You can't honestly believe that they just threw that out without any research? Or maybe you do. I don't know anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hot Heart Posted February 18, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Yeah, if there's one thing for which scientists are renowned: it's jumping to conclusions... 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Uh it's not me just jumping to conclusions. This from The Naked Ape which is actually considered popular and it's written by a famous anthropologist, Desmond Morris. The book was first published in 1967. It explains a lot of things, not just based on randomness but based on evolutionary evidence. The fact that the hair on our bodies are streamlined probably proves that at some point we might have gone back to the water or had a semi-aquatic experience. It's the book that looks at several things such as why (this was the 60s so it was beatlemania) women used to scream and get all giddy towards pop singers when they actually didn't have any desire to sleep with the said people. if you're interested in reading it --> http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329524554&sr=8-1 I'm not saying it's entirely true today because there's been advancements since but it's an important book in anthropology and everyone should read it at least once. Mind you some of the stuff such as why the human brain and penis being bigger amongst primates were refuted and disproved but not everything in the book is fake or false. He did have sufficient evidence to back a fair number of his claims. People who take issue with humans being compared to animals have found issue with the book of course. Regardless it's an interesting read. As for the example I stated, i might have extrapolated about cleavage and butt-crack (can't remember if that exact bit was in it) but it clearly mentioned the breasts of women being like the posteriors of animals. There is a reason why most animals are attracted to the posteriors and why animals still greet each other by sniffing butts and why even today a fair number of men are attracted to butts. I mean there's evidence to all of this but I'm not writing a thesis paper right now. I'm sure you can look it up. However I'm also sure you can look up evidence to the contrary if you'd like but not from scientific sources. Mind you, scientists are always the people who usually go - we're not sure and we don't know for the most part. With a few exceptions of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) I'd be interested to hear what more scientific evidence there is of this theory but as it was stated in that paragaph it was jumping to a conclusion. Perhaps that zoologist had other evidence that you didn't list. Edited February 18, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.