|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st December 2012, 11:28 AM | #361 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
1st December 2012, 11:41 AM | #362 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Trans women do not want to attract the attention of people who would harass them. This is true of most women. If people then harass them, it is not fair to say that the women have not done enough to avoid harassment.
No, she didn't. This auxiliary locker room seems to be a no-fuss, no-discomfort wonderland when you offer it to the woman, but a horrible inconvenience when chosen by the coaches of the swim team. Maybe it's not that much of an unending nightmare for the minors to have chosen a room of their own? Disgusting, unsupported speculation. It is "hard" to read minds. Maybe you shouldn't attempt it here. There is no evidence that anyone in this story acted lewdly. She seems to know, her doctors seem to, the law sanctions her identity, she is considered so in her social circle, the college agrees...but, who can tell if you can't? Since Colleen is not celibate in word and deed, you question her medically and legally tested gender identity. It shouldn't work that way. Is manhood decided by how much someone wants to have sex or not? Why is her sexuality important to this issue? Are you in favour of asking other lesbian women to find an alternate change room? Should pool attendants be given OKCupid transcripts? How do you want to do this? |
1st December 2012, 12:49 PM | #363 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
That's not unreasonable. I don't mind.
I looked for Washington State specific sources and found that to have changed her legal status, driver's license, etc. she would have had to follow a path similar to this. It's not undoable, but that's not my point. I'm only supporting that she has passed tests that are there and that she is not basing her claim that she is a woman solely on her own testimony. If the claim is made that the tests should be more stringent, that is not evidence that this specific woman would not pass those stringent tests. I'd say that she could not have a prescription for estrogen without medical supervision. --- Not connected to your request, I also found some interesting things about the human rights protections involved. Here are the protections offered by Washington State regarding gender identity. Germane to this issue, public accommodation is covered here. If something is offered for public use, identity is protected, unless the organization denies membership on expressive association grounds, as the Boy Scouts argued. It looks like the Supreme Court has overruled the state. I don't think it's necessarily true that the college would be legally unable to discriminate, as they have stated, but in order to do so, they would have to go full Boy Scouts, and deny college membership based on gender identity. In that case they could successfully ignore the state protections that are there, as the Boy Scouts do, but, being a college, they may have additional unstated legal obligations that prevent this. And the institution (the college) isn't obligated to deny someone based on identity. Edit: Oh if you meant I would have to show where people said it was casual, I think the attitude that someone "only has to say it for it to be accepted" is far more casual a procedure than submitting to psychologists, judges, friends, bureaucrats, etc. I was comparing a realistic process of what it would take to convince various sectors of a person's life with sentiments more like more than sentiments you have made. |
1st December 2012, 12:55 PM | #364 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
This is a fair enough complaint; even despite my own doubts, I myself have no problem continuing referring to this individual as "she" and "her".
But it is pretty dickish (irrespective of presence of a dick) to make all the girls and women who don't want to have to deal with this one individual splaying her legs and airing out her balls in the sauna area while watching them change, use the little auxilliary locker room instead of the womens' locker room. |
1st December 2012, 01:06 PM | #365 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
I think it would have been more appropriate to have a towel on most of the time. This would have been polite.
I object to the idea that she should be disallowed from the change room. I also don't agree that she had an overwhelming obligation to cover herself at every instance in a room where people dress and undress. If she had a striking bodily deformity, a shocking burn, whatever, I can make the case that it could be more polite to cover it, and smoother for just about everyone. I don't agree that you go from that to making the case that someone shouldn't be allowed to use the change room at all. I certainly don't go from evidence that something was visible to the idea that something was lustily flaunted. The most that could be said was that she was sitting in plain sight. Argue rudeness if you like. |
1st December 2012, 01:21 PM | #366 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
While that's good research, and useful, that wasn't what I was asking. I was talking about 'dismissing based on her attractiveness' that some in this thread 'might' do.
What evidence did the college require? Was the state issue ID the thing that did it or did they simply take her word? Was the estrogen patch the kicker? I'm curious how they did identify her as a woman and thus able to use the locker room. Thanks for the links. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
1st December 2012, 02:02 PM | #367 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 137
|
I haven't seen any statement from the college addressing this, friend tyr13, but if she is able to get hormones* and had her ID changed, she most likely has a note from her therapist stating that she is suffering from gender dysphoria. I imagine that would satisfy the college as far as validation of her claims. * She could be getting them mail-order without a letter - many trans people do, but if she is getting them from her doctor, he or she would probably require a therapist's letter. |
1st December 2012, 02:10 PM | #368 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Oh sure. I certainly was talking about people using the quality of her appearance as evidence that she wasn't authentically trans.
I assert that this is an attempt to link her level of attractiveness to a dismissal of her claim that she is a trans woman. Claim: Trans women succeed in looking like women [other than genitals] Claim: This person looks like a middle-aged man to the arguer. Conclusion: This person is not a trans woman. Initiate quotes around "she". Dismissed. I just think her middle-aged appearance is beside the point and should not be used against a claim of womanhood. It's an argument that relies on the idea that real women couldn't look like middle-aged men. It seems petty in addition to being irrelevant. A light-hearted but somehow trenchant exploration of how reliable "this-person-looks-like a" evidence is can be found here. I think the argument that she is problematic because has a sexuality is much more dangerous and serious. I don't know. If it's a driver's license she had one. Maybe they did take it on faith that she was representing herself correctly. Hmm, if I think this one through, the less hassle she had at the front desk stage, the more likely it was that someone accepted that she was a woman based on her appearance alone. This would undermine any arguments that everyone looked at her and saw a "man". If, alternately, she had major hassle getting in, does that mean she had convincing documentation in the face of it? Interesting. Can't say that I know which scenario it was. |
1st December 2012, 03:08 PM | #369 |
Terrestrial Intelligence
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,451
|
|
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli |
|
1st December 2012, 06:14 PM | #370 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
No no; the original act might've been merely thoughtless rather than intentionally lewd. I could buy that, although there's a couple of questions nagging at me about the situation still. But no, I'm referring to the subsequent banishment of all the other females who might be made uncomfortable by the scene to the horrors of the "third locker room".
I understand she's been interviewed by the media. Did she ever say that in light of the events of that night she would at least be a bit more mindful and wear a towel in the sauna? Or is she happy to let everyone else be moved to other locker rooms in order to accommodate her? |
1st December 2012, 09:12 PM | #371 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
How is anybody being banished? The coaches have chosen that change room. No one is forcing them.
They simply have the same choice that you are implying the woman has. To use a different change room. The auxiliary change room was certainly portrayed as a perfectly adequate place when it was offered as an option to her. Was anyone talking about banishing her at that point? I don't understand how the auxiliary goes from perfectly fine to Siberia, depending on who it is offered to. It may have been dickish or thoughtless to forget her towel, but it's not impolite to keep using the change room. Someone is still arguing that she shouldn't be there. Edit: I'd also point out that there are privacy screens there now that everyone can drop their towels behind. Which, as other people have suggested, aren't a bad idea. |
1st December 2012, 09:52 PM | #372 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Yeah. Sounds good.
Quote:
I don't know. You came up with the idea. You'll have to figure out the implementation deals. Ok. Maybe that's being mean or a jerk or something, but there's a certain point where explanations are lost on those not the least bit interested in seeing the obvious. For me, the point at which it became obvious that something was dreadfully wrong here was when I learned Colleen chose not to use the auxiliary locker room. What possible justification could there be for that decision by her? Of course, she (or he, or whatever) had learned what to say. Start spouting drivel about Alabama and 1959. That way they make the teen girls move, and she gets to keep scoping out the college chicks. |
1st December 2012, 10:12 PM | #373 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
Thank you for reminding me. From her statements it seems as if she does not suffer from gender dysphoria in the way I understand it. She doesn't hate her man parts and has no wish to change them. It seems she doesn't even feel they aren't part of her. Are these not key parts of gender dysphoria?
And while I agree that the state issue ID or a medical note should be enough, I was wondering if they even asked for such at all, or if it really was the honor system. EDIT: To put this another way, I've never been asked to show my ID to prove I identify as male to use the men's locker room. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
1st December 2012, 10:20 PM | #374 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I have only seen one video clip of her talking to a local television show. In it, she describes the encounter with the coach, and then later said, "This is not 1959 Alabama. We don't call the police for drinking at the wrong water fountain." (Quote is from memory.) The reporter had introduced that quote by saying, "but Francis believes these girls need an education". (Again, quote is from memory).
|
1st December 2012, 10:46 PM | #375 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I had never heard the phrase "Schrodinger's rapist" before. I googled it just to be sure what it meant.
It's a good point, and one that has been made, with slight variations, on several of the lesbian and transgender sites that have been opposed to Colleen's actions. When you compare Colleen to the girls in that locker room, Colleen is bigger than they are, Colleen is stronger than they are, and Colleen has a penis. These facts, all by themselves, should make those girls reluctant, even frightened, to take off their clothes near "her". The fact that he shows absolutely zero empathy toward those perfectly reasonable feelings is a sign of a very disturbed mind. |
2nd December 2012, 02:49 AM | #376 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
If you have a penis you're dangerous, dont you understand that?
Thats why many domestic violence shelters dont even allow boys over 12 to stay there, 12 year old boys, especially boys of abused families are monsters and are likely to assault or rape the women there. Women have to fear every man, anyone could rape them at any moment for any reason and there's nothing any of them can do about it. Women have total justification to be petrified constantly so long as they are in the presense of a human with a penis. /sarcasm |
2nd December 2012, 05:34 AM | #377 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd December 2012, 05:38 AM | #378 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
2nd December 2012, 05:44 AM | #379 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
I know a transwoman who has a full beard. Not all trans and gender queer individuals are the same. For example few transmen get genital reconstruction as it can cause sexual dysfunction.
People are complex not simple. She my or may not want genital reconstruction, it is expensive and she might prioritize other surgeries first. |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
2nd December 2012, 06:51 AM | #380 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
Yes and if we couple the SR concept (which Colleen HAD to be aware of ) with Colleen's statement about these girls needing an education, we're forced into the conclusion that the wiener display was a deliberate act.
Why ? Who Knows ? It could have been something as simple as trolling for potential partners or something more complex like an attempt to redefine womanhood. |
2nd December 2012, 09:25 AM | #381 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
2nd December 2012, 09:36 AM | #382 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
2nd December 2012, 09:40 AM | #384 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
2nd December 2012, 09:45 AM | #385 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Of course not; it's the same darn thing. Walking into the men's room asserting that you're a man, acting like a man, everything else; then walking into the sauna area and splaying your legs and female genitalia in front of all the changing boys is just as stupid and should get that person kicked out of the locker room too, pending a sit-down talk about some obviously-lacking common sense.
|
2nd December 2012, 09:51 AM | #386 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
2nd December 2012, 10:03 AM | #387 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Didn't you just earlier refer to sending her to the men's locker room (as a theoretical example) as an inconvenience, as singling her out? You're now rhetorically asking why people talking about the swim club that way are doing the same thing.
But this wasn't a case of her merely being seen changing, which you keep insisting on forgetting. She obviously wasn't in the pool locker room just to change clothes, or into or out of a swimsuit; she was there to be naked and sit in the sauna area. Privacy screens to stand behind while changing have no bearing on the fact that she'll still be sitting there showing off - that's the whole reason the swim coach decided it would be better to have all the kids use the third locker room despite the new privacy screens in the women's locker room. |
2nd December 2012, 10:17 AM | #388 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
It would be an inconvenience, if it wasn't chosen.
There is no decree that the swim team have to avoid the common change room. You're asking someone to feel remorse that people "have to" go somewhere else because they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting. You keep insisting on forgetting that the only testimony we have simply said that she was sitting in plain sight. It doesn't say anything about "splaying" "flaunting" or somehow parading. If you say that you prefer privacy stalls, fine, but don't then shift the goalposts to, she's going to continue showing off. "Showing off" implies active intent, and you don't know that. |
2nd December 2012, 10:28 AM | #389 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
To illustrate the answer, I'll begin with a rhetorical question.
I'm going to the health club this afternoon. Suppose I went there and I went into the women's locker room, and just sat down. The men's locker room has no privacy partitions. I'll guess that the women's doesn't either. Even if it does, I'm sure that somewhere in there I could catch a glimpse of a naked woman. Should I be arrested for that action? Of course I should, but why? I'm not behaving lewdly. I don't represent a threat. All I'm doing is sitting in a locker room. No harm, no foul. But there is harm. Really. Even if I simply go in, sit down, remain totally clothed, and leave after a while, there is still harm. My mere presence, my very existence, would create anxiety among the women in the locker room. It would be obvious that not only is a man in the locker room, but there is a man who is not the least concerned about their wishes and their desire for privacy. If I were to go into the women's locker room, I would be displaying utter contempt for their wishes, and they would have a legitimate fear that, given an opportunity to do so, I might disregard other wishes about their sexuality, specifically their desire not to have sex with me. That's the situation with Colleen. It beomes especially obvious if the young women are aware that Colleen is a "lesbian". In that case, what do they see when they see Colleen? They see someone who is big, strong, and has a penis. Not only that, but if they are aware of Colleen's sexual preference, then there is someone present who is big, strong, naked, has a penis, and would like to shag them. But wait. It's worse. Colleen is big, strong, naked, has a penis, would like to shag them, and doesn't care one whit if that causes them anxiety. That's a scary combination. I'll let you decide whether or not an "ordinary" lesbian would,or should, cause a similar degree of anxiety. My own opinion is that the situations are barely comparable. |
2nd December 2012, 10:32 AM | #390 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
Thanks for the link, but note that I haven't claimed it's all about balls.
From your link, the symptoms in teens and adults.
Quote:
As for the ID question being moot it isn't for me. I'm curious. I've never been asked for state issued ID to use a locker room. One of the transpeople I knew in college was a short fat bearded person with breasts the size of my head, and I have a giant head. I'm still unsure which direction they were going, male to female or female to male. We just called this person 'Big T'. I was 'in' the Pride Alliance and have spent a lot of time with homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Yet I still don't know nor do I have a strong basis for guessing which restroom or locker room Big T would or should use. We just never talked about it. I'm starting to wonder why we didn't in a group meant to discuss just this sort of thing. I could very well be that I wasn't at that meeting as I couldn't make most of them. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
2nd December 2012, 10:59 AM | #391 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
First, I asked you about your repeated objections to her sexuality not to her appearance. Let's get this clear. No one in your rhetorical or actual examples would be able to tell if you or Colleen enjoyed the thought of women or were sexually repulsed by women just by looking at hem. No one looking at Colleen would somehow just know that she would like to shag them. No one in this specific incident has complained about sexual behaviour.
You have not explained why her sexuality is important here. You are using it as a character smear and to assign unknowable motives. You have again dodged your repeated and forceful condemnations of her sexuality by changing the argument to rely on her appearance. You have responded to "Why is her sexuality important" with the idea that it is as long as you know that she has a penis and looks like a man to some people, but you would be threatened even if you didn't know her sexuality. Your idea that "if they are aware of Colleen's sexual preference" then they are somehow extra-threatened, is still an argument against any lesbian in there. Your admission that the situations are "barely comparable" is because your true argument does not rely on her sexuality at all. You add it as a character smear and a way to ascribe unknowable motivations. |
2nd December 2012, 11:11 AM | #392 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
"Big, strong, and has a penis" is not in any way a comment about appearance. It is about function. The key feature about a penis is not some aesthetic attribute. The key feature of a penis is that it can penetrate a vagina during sexual intercourse. The "big" and "strong" attributes are not about some artistic representation. The reason those attributes are important is that big, strong people can force small, weak, people do things that the small, weak, people do not want to do.
My post said absolutely nothing about "appearance". |
2nd December 2012, 01:01 PM | #393 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
I'm sorry, I was putting it crudely. I was responding to this idea...
I was trying to answer your question and point out that it it's not always about the man parts and that "hating man parts" is not "key" to the idea of gender dysphoria. More on this.... Those symptoms are "may feel" not "must feel" and are prefaced as such on that page. It is a list of possible symptoms, not a checklist that all true trans people feel. It also says people may experience depression or suicidal feelings. Some people don't. It doesn't disqualify. I think you understand this, but I thought I'd explain my argument. I would say that ultimately it comes down to how the person truly feels. As far as medically, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to someone medically qualified to assess that testimony from learning how people actually operate and not just using ad hoc gut feelings about bodies. Not "just saying" As far as legally, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to someone while under oath to a legal authority, often with direct judicial review. Not "just saying" As far as socially, it does not come down to what the person says, it comes down to what the person says to friends and peers, and whether those people support the testimony. As far as ultimately, a mute trans person could still be alone on a desert island, still trans without trial. But it wouldn't be because something was "just said". It would be because something was. I found it interesting as well, I was trying to argue that it was moot to a claim that she shouldn't be in the change room at all. I was speculating about it too. I could mean she was either passable to the front desk, or the front desk made a decision based on knowledge of gender spectrum, or they believe in the supremacy of little plastic cards. Or none of that. But I don't know how to find this out. This is interesting, too. Good experience. I find myself opposed to arguments that people like 'Big T' should just go where no one would ever have to interact with them as a solution. I think interaction takes away a lot of these fear-of-the-unknown arguments. |
2nd December 2012, 01:10 PM | #394 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
You're not making the type of argument that could not be made about a big, strong, lesbian.
If your argument is about the penis, then make it without dragging in appearance, sexuality, or other types of function. You have not made the claim that strong people should not be allowed to use the change room. |
2nd December 2012, 01:48 PM | #395 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Is that why they're choosing to use the auxilliary locker room? Because "they agree with conservative christians that she is somehow disgusting"? No other possible reason, huh?
From the report:
Quote:
As for intent, I'll freely admit I'm "inferring" that, but because the alternative is that the transwoman really was so incredibly stupid that she could walk into the locker room, notice that it's full of children, and actually be completely oblivious that stripping and sitting down with her legs spread open in a place where they could all get a good look at her genitals might not be a good idea. |
2nd December 2012, 02:13 PM | #396 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Sure, but even if it's for other reasons, it's still a choice. You wanted to frame it as a dictate instead of them choosing a workaround. That's how it was framed it when you suggested it for the woman.
A towel would have been polite. It's not fair to go from that to intent to attack. You've said you're okay with pre-op trans women already. You're somehow not okay with no-op women, even though they are supported medically, legally, and socially. There is no other difference here. It is fallacious to use the fact that she is a no-op trans woman to back up your claim that you know her intent. I don't think it's a great idea to imply malicious intent when it is not spoken to by the people who were actually there. Edit: I noticed that you are using an inference to back up your inference. Kind of the problem with this line of argument. |
2nd December 2012, 02:54 PM | #397 |
Crone of War
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
|
Agreed.
Indeed, and on this post s/he even identifies as he? WTF? She did get estrogen, so it's a wee bit more than just a cross-dresser, but yeah, not a whole lot. Regardless of her sexuality, though, she seems like a complete jerk and I would not be comfortable with this person using the locker rooms at my local facility. At all. I would have zero problem with actual transwomen, but honestly I fail to see why this person would want to identify as a woman when s/he's so happy and proud of his/her birth genitals. It makes absolutely no sense. Ditto. |
2nd December 2012, 03:06 PM | #398 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
A big, strong, lesbian, assuming she is the ordinary sort of lesbian, cannot use her penis to penetrate a woman's vagina because ordinary lesbians do not have penises. An ordinary lesbian cannot cause an undesired pregnancy because ordinary lesbians don't create sperm.
This whole penis thing matters. |
2nd December 2012, 03:10 PM | #399 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Gender dysphoria does not equal genital hate.
Gender does not equal genitals. This isn't a new idea and it doesn't just apply uniquely to this example. |
2nd December 2012, 03:17 PM | #400 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
I may have created some confusion there. Mea culpa. The material I quoted from was a blog post about Colleen, and that blog post contained quotes from Colleen's own blog. The blogger referred to Colleen as "he", but Colleen refers to herself consistently as "she" at least in the material I have read.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|