• Trump announces ban on transgender people in U.S. military
    387 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511448]I disagree with your position, therefore I'm apparently objectively wrong and "willfully ignorant." Nice ad hominem, dude. If I got "shredded" then I'm glad you feel so objectively right, and that I am so objectively wrong. I wish I lived in such a reality where I could be 100% certain all of my opinions, political beliefs, and strategic viewpoints were infallible.[/QUOTE] No, your argument is objectively wrong. People have repeatedly deconstructed every point you are wrong on and explained why but you refuse to accept that and usually don't even acknowledge their arguments. There is no ad hominem here. [QUOTE]I wish I lived in such a reality where I could be 100% certain all of my opinions, political beliefs, and strategic viewpoints were infallible.[/QUOTE] Also it's pretty ironic that you say this because it's exactly how you've been acting during your entire stay in this thread in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511465]fit to fight dude, that was the argument, not the volume of pills.[/QUOTE] I address that. And yes, you mention about supply chain. My point is to show supply chain is of absolutely no issue because of lack of price, lack of volume. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511465] You think I'm ignorant and flawed because you believe differently, that's fine, but it's far more arrogant than any position I've taken.[/QUOTE] Stop putting words in my mouth please. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511474]How have my points been deconstructed? All I've seen is people going "No, you're wrong, it's fine and wouldn't cause a problem." How is that empirical evidence? Why should I feel compelled to change my beliefs on that basis?[/quote] Look at the past 50 or so posts. Again. [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511474]I've circled around to this point a dozen times, it's that we shouldn't accept any group known to have an increased risk factor for something damaging to their health. What about that is wrong? Please tell me. Nowhere have I seen a study linked that said "Actually, transgender individuals in the military AREN'T at a higher risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health issues."[/QUOTE] None exist, or need to exist because that is not our point. Our point is that your logic is flawed by saying transgender should be barred due to their incidental suicide rate because being transgender is not implication of mental illness. You have been shown time and time again by other users why this argument line fail due to the statistics and by other using applying that logic to other ethnic groups, sexual orientations.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511465]How does personally attacking someone for sharing a differing viewpoint from the group make you any better? Come on, man. Not once have I made an insinuation or insult towards somebody for their standpoint.[/QUOTE] I'm not personally attacking you. I genuinly believe you're trying to act superior than other people. Also thats the question I wanted ask you the whole damn time, thanks for putting it into words.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511465]You think I'm ignorant and flawed because you believe differently, that's fine, but it's far more arrogant than any position I've taken.[/QUOTE] Quit playing the victim. You're not being persecuted, you're just plain wrong and refuse to accept it. The underpinning of your arguments have been repeatedly discredited.
Newsflash! We've been disproving it the whole time!
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511489]Refute this. My entire argument is based on this information. I haven't seen anyone tell me why this isn't substantial enough to be worth giving SOME merit to the ban.[/QUOTE] [quote][QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511474]I've circled around to this point a dozen times, it's that we shouldn't accept any group known to have an increased risk factor for something damaging to their health. What about that is wrong? Please tell me. Nowhere have I seen a study linked that said "Actually, transgender individuals in the military AREN'T at a higher risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health issues."[/QUOTE] None exist, or need to exist because that is not our point. Our point is that your logic is flawed by saying transgender should be barred due to their incidental suicide rate because BEING TRANSGENDER IS NOT IMPLICATION MENTAL ILLNESS BY DEFINITION AND IMPRICAL STUDY. You have been shown time and time again by other users why this argument line fail due to the statistics and by other using applying that logic to other ethnic groups, sexual orientations.[/quote]
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511474]How have my points been deconstructed? All I've seen is people going "No, you're wrong, it's fine and wouldn't cause a problem." How is that empirical evidence? Why should I feel compelled to change my beliefs on that basis? I've circled around to this point a dozen times, it's that we shouldn't accept any group known to have an increased risk factor for something damaging to their health. What about that is wrong? Please tell me. Nowhere have I seen a study linked that said "Actually, transgender individuals in the military AREN'T at a higher risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health issues."[/QUOTE] Well if you can't be assed reading what people say in reply to you I don't see what reason I have to try and argue the exact same point they've repeatedly made. Because people have explained exactly WHY you are wrong on many occasions. Yet you never acknowledge these points at all nor debate them. You just continue to spout the exact same thing people have been debunking for the last few pages. This happens in just about any debate you get involved in but it's especially egregious here when you've already admitted in the past (in other threads on the subject of transgenderism) you're not well versed on the subject of transgenderism to begin with. Yet you're acting like an expert over people who have a lot of experience with it. Science supports the arguments opposing you. So even ignoring the part where your arguments are uninformed and poorly thought out, decades of research by experts in the field of psychology states you are wrong.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52511519]lets assume the max number of trans troops so we can really get this hypothetical hard and throbbing if the proportion of trans troops is correct, we have a whopping[B] 5[/B] or [B]6[/B] trans soldiers in conflict zones right now, wowzers thats a lot of people who need a bottle of pills every month[/QUOTE] ...and that poses an existential threat to the United States! If those soldiers get their pills, we'll just have to give up on defending our country altogether!
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511489]Refute this. My entire argument is based on this information. I haven't seen anyone tell me why this isn't substantial enough to be worth giving SOME merit to the ban.[/QUOTE] I responded with multiple points - you ignored the post. I agree that people who suffer from suicidal thoughts are unfit to serve in the military. Not all transgender people are unfit to serve, because [B]not all transgender people are suicidal[/B]. Should we ban young men from driving vehicles, because they have a higher incidence of fatal vehicle crashes than any other demographic? I guess black people shouldn't be allowed to give blood because they have a higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia, right? People born in Southern states have higher incidence of diabetes, so they might need insulin shots and we can't afford to carry that around, so they should get disqualified too. Pick a demographic, it'll have higher incidence in [I]some[/I] disease than the general population - that doesn't justify disqualification [I]based on that demographic alone[/I]. Disqualify the symptom, not the demographic that [I]might[/I] have that symptom at a higher rate than everyone else. If there is a transgender person who is not suicidal who wants to join the military, please tell me why they should not be allowed. Because other transgender people are suicidal? So are cisgendered people - why doesn't that disqualify me?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511380]Okay. Fine. Let's say we have a transgender individual, they end up in Intel. Desk job right? Okay sure, but they get deployed sometimes. Now we're buying the sex hormones, now we've got a loadmaster with an extra pallet of drugs he's loading onto a C-17, and we have a pilot flying this stuff over to a base because someone [B]needs[/B] these drugs. There are some pretty unpleasant health issues that can arise from not having a proper level of sex hormone so now we have an extra demographic that is dependent on a prescription. So what's the next step? Are we going to load up insulin and inhalers too? Why not? Where do you draw the line? Do you want the military to be about defending the country or do you want the military to be about the individual? It's not about the money. Fine, build one less F-35. Build one less experimental railgun. Drop 20 less bunker busters to pay for transgender service members. Whatever. Cut costs however you like and stop unnecessary spending. That's not the point. The point is you're trying to open the door to individuals who are more vulnerable to issues arising. There is no such thing as "well have them do desk work and don't deploy them then." Everyone is expected to be fit to fight, at any time, at a moments notice. This issue is no different from diabetes, asthma, or individuals who NEED adhd medication to be effective.[/QUOTE] I feel like the logical conclusion of the argument you're making is no one with any problems should be in the military and there should be no one loading prescription drugs due to someone [B]needing[/B] those drugs because at the other end of that plane trip there shouldn't be anyone who needs a drug at all because, where do you draw the line?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510757][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/"]Source[/URL] Sounds like it should be disqualifying to me.[/QUOTE] I really hate it when people pretend to care about some wider issue when really the motive is so obviously steeped in bigotry. Gay men also have a higher suicide rate than straight men, so we should ban them too right? If you named literally any demographic you are bound to find something you could use to justify disqualifying them if you looked hard enough. "Young males have a statistically higher amount of road accidents... AND U WANT THEM DRIVING TANKS????". You are just using the same tired justifications for discrimination that people have always used to hide the fact they just can't deal with people being different. What if I told you that higher rates of depression and suicide in LGBT individuals aren't the result of some in-built disorder they all have, but [b]a reflection of the way they are treated by your society.[/b] You want to know why LGBT people so often want to kill themselves? Take a look at this ban you are so happy to be defending. Your point is basically circular reasoning. 'LGBT people are more prone to depression because society discriminates against them- so this justifies discriminating them"
Popping a little potentially useless hand up here to point out that the General Staff of the UKAF already has members tweeting their unwavering support for Trans servicepeople. That being a smaller, better trained but far less logistically capable force. So this military capability argument is bullshit unless the US CoC makes it logistically impossible quite deliberately.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52511425][QUOTE]Facebook Post[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] "I'd like to respond this calmly and rationally. Trans people shouldn't be allowed in the military because they think it's unfair that they're banned."
So let me get this straight. Trump supports the LGBTQ crowd, wants to build up our military, and provide jobs for Americans. So he's going to do all that by taking away the right for transgendered individuals to serve in the Armed Forces, shit-can the ones currently serving, and in doing so, ensure a bunch of Americans no longer have a job. Someone is going to have to explain to me how the hell that makes any sense, because I'm just not seeing it.
:snip:
[QUOTE=Reaper297;52511689]So let me get this straight. Trump supports the LGBTQ crowd, wants to build up our military, and provide jobs for Americans. So he's going to do all that by taking away the right for transgendered individuals to serve in the Armed Forces, shit-can the ones currently serving, and in doing so, ensure a bunch of Americans no longer have a job. Someone is going to have to explain to me how the hell that makes any sense, because I'm just not seeing it.[/QUOTE] He never supported the LGBTQ community. He only said he did to gain their support, then immediately shat on 'em.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510908]Both are RISK FACTORS. Asthma being a risk factor for having a fucking attack, being transsexual is a risk factor for depression and suicide.[/QUOTE] That's like saying being black is a risk factor for being poor, it's fucking stupid. There's a causal link between being asthmatic and having asthma attacks. There is no causal link between being trans and having a mental illness, that study you posted shows squat. Correlation=/=causation. [editline]27th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;52510942][B]Increased[/B] risk compared to the general population. Read the study I posted. I've said it probably half a dozen times now. Why accept any group with an increased risk compared to the general population in any aspect?[/QUOTE] OK, let's not accept black people because a larger part of their population commit crimes. Let's not accept women because they're weaker on average than men, even if the ones that apply meet the same standards as men. Let's not accept white people because they perform worse on average than black people at running. Congratulation, you now have an army that consists of thin air.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52510497]The problem with America is we're so open to everyone. America will accept you no matter your race or religion or beliefs. That's a nice thing and all, but that means you'll never be able to make everyone happy, because one demographic doesn't like this one. It's mostly old people, though, that are like this. The people 30 and younger don't really give a fuck and see everyone as just fellow citizens. I suspect this will be the last generation that clutches so hard to their own personal beliefs and tries to govern by them. And by govern I mean rule. Because living off our dime and interjecting only your own personal beliefs into how you represent your citizens is ruling, not representing.[/QUOTE] This is true if you don't include the young people who were taught by the older people to believe in the same shit that they do.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52510651]I don't think it does. The point I'm making is anyone can be a citizen here, which means every way of life lives here, and it's impossible to make everyone happy, currently, because those governing the country see everyone as Black White Straight Gay, This or That, rather than what they are: Fellow American Citizens, which is how I and almost every 30 and under sees people who live here[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "anyone can be a citizen here"? Becoming a US citizen if you weren't already isn't exactly the easiest thing, there are plenty of countries that are easier to become a citizen of in the world. If you mean that ethnicity, religion, etc don't factor in becoming a US citizen, then yeah no shit, just like in every other first world country. I don't see how that makes the US particularly accepting.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52510653]you do realise that some "sexologist" (john money) thought this in the 1960s and used it as the basis for mutilating little childrens genitals and forced them to be raised as the opposite sex under that assumption right? those kids committed suicide, which is as strong an argument you can make[/QUOTE] It was only one guy actually, he was born male but suffered from a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. Doctor's floated the idea of raising him as a woman, and his parents begrudgingly accepted it, and psychologist John Money oversaw his life. Money deemed it was successful throughout childhood but Reimer disagreed with that assessment, and during his teenage years he voluntarily began living life as a male. He lived as a man for the rest of his life until he committed suicide after the loss of his twin brother and failure of his marriage.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511870][URL="https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf"]Source[/URL] 41% of transgender people attempt suicide compared to 4.6% of the general population. If you want to tell me that the demographic isn't a risk then you're delusional. The effectiveness of our military should never be compromised in order to use the military as a platform for the societal progress of what you believe is "right." That justifies a blanket ban. A transgender person joins, does a job, kills themself - now that job isn't being done, unit cohesion and morale are ruined, etc etc. It's a risk. I don't know where you people disagreeing with me are getting your information or belief that it's somehow acceptable to recruit someone with a 41% chance of attempting taking their own life. There is no infallible test for mental illness, you can't determine with absolute accuracy if someone is going to kill themselves. The whole "oh well they're disqualified then" argument I ran into previously is unrealistic and naive, willful ignorance as many of you would call it. If the military had the time and money to perform psychological evaluations on everyone they still wouldn't catch all the issues and to think otherwise is foolish at best. The cause of this insanely high percentage is irrelevant, I'm not here to argue it. If you believe it's due to discrimination or because transgenderism is an illness, I don't care. I'm not even going to make a statement in that regard, I'm saying the high occurrence of suicide attempts makes the entire demographic a risk and therefore they should be banned. This is the same point I made before but with a more recent and clear study that supports my point in the manner I originally intended, more accurately than the first. This is the absolute last post I'm making on the topic, if you'd like to discuss with me about this please please PM me or add me on Steam, I welcome civil discussion. If this doesn't establish the argument I'm trying to make then nothing I say will.[/QUOTE] I think it would be fair to say those preop and those currently in the middle of transition would't be allowed on the same grounds as others in such a medical situation, but those postop? I found this, for example. [quote]We identified 28 eligible studies. These studies enrolled 1833 participants with GID (1093 male-to-female, 801 female-to-male) who underwent sex reassignment that included hormonal therapies. All the studies were observational and most lacked controls. Pooling across studies shows that after sex reassignment, 80% of individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria (95% CI = 68-89%; 8 studies; I(2) = 82%); 78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms (95% CI = 56-94%; 7 studies; I(2) = 86%); 80% reported significant improvement in quality of life (95% CI = 72-88%; 16 studies; I(2) = 78%); and 72% reported significant improvement in sexual function (95% CI = 60-81%; 15 studies; I(2) = 78%)[/quote] [URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473181[/URL] I think if you read the wealth of information and studies available concerning all the stages and factors associated with this you'd realise it's disingenuous to pretend your opinion is solid and not based on cherry picked evidence, like I just did here. One paper, with differing conclusions to the other 100* out there, is enough to justify a blanket ban?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511870]The cause of this insanely high percentage is irrelevant, I'm not here to argue it.[/QUOTE] No, it's totally relevant and people have [I]repeatedly explained fucking why to you[/I]. You're simply not interested in debate and are physically incapable of entertaining the idea that, guess what? You're actually wrong.
I told myself I'd never log into this website or another forum again because I have an addiction to them and it wastes so much time, but this whole topic has made me angry and there's important information that just seems to not have been posted here before (excuse me if I've been blind on this). [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/transgender-military.html"]NY Times article on the lifting of the ban from last year [/URL] (credit to [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/6pnwtp/trump_just_announced_a_ban_on_all_transgender/dkqr7dc/"]this comment[/URL] for skimming through the article): [QUOTE]"But several studies on the issue have concluded that lifting the ban is unlikely to have any appreciable effect on the readiness of the armed forces. Estimates of the number of transgender service members have varied, but the number most often cited comes from a study by the RAND Corporation and commissioned by Mr. Carter. It found that out of the approximately 1.3 million active-duty service members, an estimated 2,450 were transgender, and that every year, about 65 service members would seek to make a gender transition. Providing medical care to those seeking to transition would cost $2.9 million to $4.2 million a year for the Pentagon, which spends about $6 billion of its $610 billion annual budget on medical costs for active-duty service members, according to the report, which was completed in March. The report also said that if the Pentagon did not cover medical procedures like hormone therapy and surgery, transgender service members would probably not seek medical care and could have higher rates of substance abuse and suicide. Making the announcement on Thursday, Mr. Carter said the Pentagon had studied the experience of allied countries that already allow transgender people to serve in their militaries, such as Britain, Australia and Israel. He also cited the experience of companies such as Boeing and Ford, which offer health insurance policies that cover the costs of gender transitions. “That’s up from zero companies in 2002,” Mr. Carter said. “Among doctors, employers and insurance companies, providing medical care for transgender individuals is becoming common and normalized in both public and private sectors alike.” But as much as any practical concern played into the decision, Mr. Carter said it was also “a matter of principle.” “Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so,” he said. “After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans. And the profession of arms is based on honor and trust.”[/QUOTE] And it just so happens one of the soldiers that got Bin Laden is [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/6pou5t/one_of_the_navy_seals_who_participated_in_the_bin/?sort=top"]transgender.[/URL] This ban is not about "practical concerns". It's not about the "risks" of having a transgender soldier. It's purely to ban transgender people for political points from anti-trans conservatives. Now I'm well aware I'm biased on this whole issues (for a variety of reasons) but watching this unfold, while not being American (and not liking the US military in the first place) has been depressing, because the sheer [I]ignorance[/I] being displayed is quite upsetting. Simply put - if other countries can successfully have transgender soldiers in their militaries, and it's been proven transgender soldiers are not disruptive - why ban them?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511870]:words:[/QUOTE] Lmao the old "I welcome civil discussion but also don't care to listen to any points that don't back up my world view." How the fuck is the cause of depression in LGBT individuals irrelevant to a discussion where high suicide rates among transgender individuals is your only point in favour of discrimination against them?. I'm not sure how new you are to the concept of "having a discussion" but if you make a point and someone debates that point- you can't just say "I don't care" and then reiterate your original point in a more long-winded manner and still claim to be ~discussing~ the issue.
What people don't seem to get about the fact that transgender people have high suicide rates is that its not solely down to gender dysphoria. That is a large component - but the high suicide rates are also driven by familial and societal rejection. The main, proven cure for gender dysphoria is transitioning. We know this lowers suicide rates, and would likely lower them [I]significantly more[/I] if society did not reject transgender people. The whole argument about suicide and transgender people having high rates of mental illness fails to realise that this is not because people are transgender - it is because society is not treating them with respect. It is exactly the same reason why gay people have higher rates of suicide - because for a large amount of history, society rejects them. Now I'm lucky. I'm living in Ireland, which is great for LGBT rights and acceptance. But it makes me angry and upset that countries like the United States are going backwards on this. Again, I'm no fan of the United States military, but I am not blind to the fact that desegregation between white and black soldiers in the United States military, for example, had a huge impact on promoting civil rights for black people there. Military desegregation in the United States does appear to change opinions over there. So doing something like this, in my opinion, will only harm LGBT acceptance.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511870][URL="https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf"]Source[/URL] 41% of transgender people attempt suicide compared to 4.6% of the general population. If you want to tell me that the demographic isn't a risk then you're delusional. The effectiveness of our military should never be compromised in order to use the military as a platform for the societal progress of what you believe is "right." That justifies a blanket ban. A transgender person joins, does a job, kills themself - now that job isn't being done, unit cohesion and morale are ruined, etc etc. It's a risk. I don't know where you people disagreeing with me are getting your information or belief that it's somehow acceptable to recruit someone with a 41% chance of attempting taking their own life. There is no infallible test for mental illness, you can't determine with absolute accuracy if someone is going to kill themselves. The whole "oh well they're disqualified then" argument I ran into previously is unrealistic and naive, willful ignorance as many of you would call it. If the military had the time and money to perform psychological evaluations on everyone they still wouldn't catch all the issues and to think otherwise is foolish at best. The cause of this insanely high percentage is irrelevant, I'm not here to argue it. If you believe it's due to discrimination or because transgenderism is an illness, I don't care. I'm not even going to make a statement in that regard, I'm saying the high occurrence of suicide attempts makes the entire demographic a risk and therefore they should be banned. This is the same point I made before but with a more recent and clear study that supports my point in the manner I originally intended, more accurately than the first. This is the absolute last post I'm making on the topic, if you'd like to discuss with me about this please please PM me or add me on Steam, I welcome civil discussion. If this doesn't establish the argument I'm trying to make then nothing I say will.[/QUOTE] That logic is bullshit. Should we not allow anybody of Native American descent into the military as well? [quote=https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf] The suicide rate among American Indian/Alaska Native adolescents and young adults ages 15 to 34 (19.5 per 100,000) is 1.5 times higher than the national average for that age group (12.9 per 100,000)[/quote] Also, when looking up groups of people of that are likely to commit suicide for this bit I kept coming across [I]ARMED FORCES[/I]. People that have been in the military are likely to commit suicide or have expensive medical bills. Maybe nobody in the military should be allowed in the military.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52511870]41% of transgender people attempt suicide compared to 4.6% of the general population. If you want to tell me that the demographic isn't a risk then you're delusional. The effectiveness of our military should never be compromised in order to use the military as a platform for the societal progress of what you believe is "right."[/QUOTE] I'm just going to copy+paste this from visitor messages since it's quite relevant and hasn't really been stated before but for anyone else who's thinking this: Well as someone already pointed out in the thread, one of the members of the team that took down Bin Laden is transgender. So clearly they're not quite as weak as you think they are. You need to quit thinking of them as one cohesive group that all have the same exact traits and start thinking of them as individuals. Someone who gets into the military and makes it through basic training is by nature already mentally tougher than the general populace to begin with. And that's going to lend itself well to handling gender dysphoria better than most transgender people meaning they're far more likely to fall in the 59% that don't attempt suicide than the 41% that do.
I want to address something specifically here to FinalHunter he's said a few times (but I feel it's more important to keep things like this in the relevant thread rather than dragging it to user comments): FinalHunter, I find it strange you are saying both on your comment feed here and in the transgender people in the military thread that the United States military isn't "a place for change in society" when desegregation between white and black people in the US military was an important step in the fight for Civil Rights. Do you not think that having transgender people in the US military is important for overcoming the discrimination that faces them - particularly when other armies from around the world such as the United Kingdom, Israel etc. have proven they can be successfully integrated? Surely it would be better for the White House to follow what Mr Carter said, from the article I posted earlier in this thread?
People crying about this, do you realise these people will face combat? How are you going to be an effective combat unit if one of you is taking hormones or doing xyz related to being trans or changing. Its logical because people would end up at risk. It's the military, you're supposed to be one big uniform force that fights for your country, the whole point is that you become more than an individual and become a part of the bigger unit. The whole point in being a soldier is being moulded into the exact specific requirements of being one. You join the military to conform to military life, you don't join and have military life moulded around you. How can that unit operate at 100% efficiency when people are making themselves different or "coming out". All that does is form clashes and separate what is supposed to be a tight knit group.
I really don't get how a president that is pretty much against his citizens is still in office.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.