• How do you fight possible false rape reports? Get your MRA buddies and spam actual false rape report
    291 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Simski;43237449]If you feel that feminism is taking sides, why would you choose to take the opposite side, instead of looking for a way to promote both sides?[/QUOTE] tbh the idea that feminism is a "side" is really silly. it's pretty much just directed egalitarianism, which is why all those people that say "i'm not a feminist i'm an [I]egalitarian[/I]" don't know what they're talking about. if you actually did believe in equal rights for everyone you wouldn't have to make that distinction between the two
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43237432]I heard someone on some forum say something like that one time, which means I am justified in bringing it up whenever I feel like as something which people actually believe. So whenever anyone talks about the deep, ideological goals of a huge movement involving millions of people, I can mention that one time I heard someone say something I disagree with.[/QUOTE] Actually it's an idea often expressed on the internet, but the reality is it's from a book written by Andrea Dworkin who is a pretty big deal in the movement. That book is called "Intercourse".
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43234177]Maybe the idea is to draw attention to the fact that it's a problem?[/QUOTE] What, false rape reports? They aren't. statistically speaking, that is. I mean of course false rape reports are awful but all the same they are not frequent. [quote]A report by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) examined rape allegations in England and Wales over a 17-month period between January 2011 and May 2012. It showed that [B]in 35 cases authorities believed there was enough evidence to prosecute a person for making a false allegation, while in 5,651 cases there was enough evidence to prosecute for rape.[/B][/quote] [quote]David Lisak's study, published in 2010 in Violence Against Women, [B]classified as false 8 out of the 136 (5.9%)[/B] reported rapes at an American university over a ten-year period.[/quote] [quote]A study of 812 rape accusations made to police in Victoria Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that[B] 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false[/B], with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.[/quote] [quote]-Theilade and Thomsen (1986): [B]1 out of 56[/B]/4 out of 39 -New York Rape Squad (1974): [B]2%[/B] false reporting rate -Hursch and Selkin (1974): [B]10 out of 545[/B] -Kelly et al. (2005): [B]67 out of 2,643[/B] -Geis (1978): [B]3–31%[/B] (estimates given by police surgeons) -Smith (1989): [B]17 out of 447[/B] -U.S. Department of Justice (1997): [B]8% false reporting rate[/B] -Clark and Lewis (1977): [B]12 out of 116[/B] -Harris and Grace (1999): [B]53 out of 483[/B] -Lea et al. (2003): [B]42 out of 379[/B] -HMCPSI/HMIC (2002): [B]164 out of 1,379[/B] -McCahill et al. (1979): [B]218 out of 1,198[/B] -Philadelphia police study (1968): [B]74 out of 370[/B] -Chambers and Millar (1983): [B]44 out of 196[/B] -Grace et al. (1992): [B]80 out of 335[/B] -Jordan (2004): [B]68 out of 164[/B] -Kanin (1994): [B]45 out of 109[/B]* -Gregory and Lees (1996): [B]49 out of 109[/B] -Maclean (1979): [B]16 out of 34[/B] -Stewart (1981): [B]16 out of 18[/B][/quote] [quote]A 2005 study, "A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases" was the largest and most rigorous study to date commissioned by the British Home Office on UK rape crime, from the initial reporting of a rape through to legal prosecutions. The study was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, police departments [B]classified 8% as false reports[/B].[/quote] [quote]FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of [B]"unfounded" rape accusations around 8%[/B].[/quote] [quote]In 1994, Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987...The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was [B]45; this was 41% of the 109[/B] total complaints filed in this period. *Critics of Kanin's report include David Lisak, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Men's Sexual Trauma Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Boston. He states, "Kanin’s 1994 article on false allegations [U]is a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations.[/U]"... Kanin, Lisak writes, took his data from a [U]police department whose investigation procedures are condemned by the U.S. Justice Department and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.[/U][/quote] [quote]DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, [B]they generally agree on a range of 2% to 8%.[/B][/quote] [quote]Edward Greer (2000) estimates a much higher percentage of false accusations. Writing in the Law Review of Loyola of Los Angeles, Greer writes: "Despite the difficulties in measuring wrongful accusations, there is indirect data available that is highly suggestive that [B]far more than two percent of rape accusations are false[/B]. In a significant fraction of instances, the accusers recant their charges; [u]in others, where no formal recantation occurs but where rape may have occurred, there are good reasons to believe that the accusation must nevertheless be wrong about the identity of the assailant.[/U] One illustration of this phenomenon are the instances where DNA testing has determined that the man actually imprisoned for rape after trial was not the individual the victim claimed was the assailant."[/quote]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237559']What, false rape reports? They aren't. statistically speaking, that is. I mean of course false rape reports are awful but all the same they are not frequent.[/QUOTE] Note that sometimes organizations file cases where there wasn't enough evidence towards either party under "false reports" too
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237559']What, false rape reports? They aren't. statistically speaking, that is. I mean of course false rape reports are awful but all the same they are not frequent.[/QUOTE] 2-8% is still pretty significant, and if that last quote of yours is right and false reports are actually much higher (probably the case due to how hard it is to prove a report is false), then false reports are a serious issue. I mean, what's the threshold for when false reports become significant to you? 10%? 20%? [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43237585]Note that sometimes organizations file cases where there wasn't enough evidence towards either party under "false reports" too[/QUOTE] If that's the case that is seriously retarded.
[QUOTE=Simski;43237449]If you feel that feminism is taking sides, why would you choose to take the opposite side, instead of looking for a way to promote both sides?[/QUOTE] Feminism only takes sides if your perception of feminism amounts to "Well it says the word fem in the name of it I guess that sums it up. No need to actually understand what it's about" Judging a book by its cover has never been so convenient for those already looking for a way to promote themselves in a reactionary way.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43237540]Actually it's an idea often expressed on the internet, but the reality is it's [B]A misinterpretation of[/B]a book written by Andrea Dworkin who is a pretty big deal in the movement. That book is called "Intercourse".[/QUOTE] fixed that
[QUOTE=acds;43237469]Well, not like MRAs have much power either. [/QUOTE] That's because most MRAs are either rednecks without a high school education who are bitter about their poor life choices or they are in the mid to late teens unable to find a girlfriend. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237599']Feminism only takes sides if your perception of feminism amounts to "Well it says the word fem in the name of it I guess that sums it up. No need to actually understand what it's about" [/QUOTE] What about radical femists like Valerie Solanas who advocated killing all men, or Mary Daly who would not allow men to attend her university lectures? How is that equal? Feminism by definition is the advocacy of women's rights. Nothing more or less. You can redefine it all you want, but that doesn't make your redefinition the truth. If feminism was egalitarian, then there wouldn't be a distinction between the two.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43237597]2-8% is still pretty significant, and if that last quote of yours is right and false reports are actually much higher (probably the case due to how hard it is to prove a report is false), then false reports are a serious issue. I mean, what's the threshold for when false reports become significant to you? 10%? 20%?[/QUOTE] Yo; here's the deal: no matter how serious the problem is, the misleading and ideologically duplicitous way that MRAs go about "adressing" the problem will never be appropriate. Regadless of the specific prevalence on false rape statistics, blaming their prevalance on "misandry" and attacking "feminazis" would still be bullshit.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;43237597]2-8% is still pretty significant, and if that last quote of yours is right and false reports are actually much higher (probably the case due to how hard it is to prove a report is false), then false reports are a serious issue. I mean, what's the threshold for when false reports become significant to you? 10%? 20%?[/QUOTE] Every false rape report is significant in that it's awful and no one will deny that. But what I will deny is that it is a problem worth undermining a system of anonymous rape reporting for and that false rape reports are common or the majority, which is frequent MRA spew. Is it a problem? Sure, 10% is shittingly high, but all the same a high end estimate of 10% is not something worth doing this shit over. In perspective, is 8% of the US is shot, intentionally or otherwise, that's cause for alarm and something should be done to prevent that further. But to say that we now need to fix it and bring attention to it by shooting people is asinine, and saying that most gunshots are at people is false, and saying that the majority of gunshots are aimed at people is a blatant lie. What's happening here is that you have a section of a movement who is taking a very small minority- 2-10%- of rape reports and using that as ammunition against everyone who makes a rape report in support of the belief that this is more frequent than the truth. Should we eliminate that 8%? Fuck yea. Should it be done by blaming women, calling false on all rape reports, stereotyping women as lying whores, or undermining legitimate systems to help actual victims of rape? Fuck no, but yet this is exactly what the MRM does.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237619]What about radical femists like Valerie Solanas who advocated killing all men, or Mary Daly who would not allow men to attend her university lectures? How is that equal? [/QUOTE] I don't feel threatened by those women so I don't care??? [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237619]Feminism by definition is the advocacy of women's rights. Nothing more or less. You can redefine it all you want, but that doesn't make your redefinition the truth. If feminism was egalitarian, then there wouldn't be a distinction between the two.[/QUOTE] "Feminism" is the name for the struggle for the total equality of men and women because women are the ones who have had to fight for their equality. It's not called "humanitarianism" because that would maybe hint at the false idea that men are in any way the victims of misandry (as opposed to sometimes, themselves, being disadvantaged by institutional misogyny).
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237619] What about radical femists like Valerie Solanas who advocated killing all men, or Mary Daly who would not allow men to attend her university lectures? How is that equal? Feminism by definition is the advocacy of women's rights. Nothing more or less. You can redefine it all you want, but that doesn't make your redefinition the truth. If feminism was egalitarian, then there wouldn't be a distinction between the two.[/QUOTE] What about them? Are you going to try and tell me that extremists represent the entire movement? Because that's exactly what you're alluring to right now. Second line: "I refuse to read the current literature or understand the movement as it has evolved. I fail to understand that the foundations of a movement can be used to justify in a meaningful way support for other causes and that theory evolves to encompass more than what it had fought for in the past. I can say that feminism, at its base, is the advocacy of women's rights and then tell him that that's only it, because I obviously do not understand that the current conception of advocacy for women's rights include the reduction of gender roles and equalizing of both sexes as a means of eliminating misogyny. Maybe if I keep pushing this watered down and completely stripped understanding of a philosophy I have little to no understanding of in its current form[assumption], then I can make them look wrong because they can't ague with it." keep trying [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Symbol_thumbs_up.svg/15px-Symbol_thumbs_up.svg.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Cone;43237537]tbh the idea that feminism is a "side" is really silly. it's pretty much just directed egalitarianism, which is why all those people that say "i'm not a feminist i'm an [I]egalitarian[/I]" don't know what they're talking about. if you actually did believe in equal rights for everyone you wouldn't have to make that distinction between the two[/QUOTE] Sadly, this is a unnecessarily common problem.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43237700]I don't feel threatened by those women so I don't care??? [/QUOTE] I don't get how you can preach an ideology when the pioneers of that ideology hated you and worked against your interests. Not to mention there are still people working within that ideology that hate you and work against your interests. [quote] "Feminism" is the name for the struggle for the total equality of men and women because women are the ones who have had to fight for their equality. It's not called "humanitarianism" because that would maybe hint at the false idea that men are in any way the victims of misandry (as opposed to sometimes, themselves, being disadvantaged by institutional misogyny).[/quote] Wouldn't men being disadvantaged by institutionalized misogyny just be another name for misandry? [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237735']What about them? Are you going to try and tell me that extremists represent the entire movement? Because that's exactly what you're alluring to right now.[/QUOTE] How can you have extreme neutral? If something that is neutral has the ability to be extreme then it can't be neutral by definition. [quote] Second line: "I refuse to read the current literature or understand the movement as it has evolved. I fail to understand that the foundations of a movement can be used to justify in a meaningful way support for other causes and that theory evolves to encompass more than what it had fought for in the past. I can say that feminism, at its base, is the advocacy of women's rights and then tell him that that's only it, because I obviously do not understand that the current conception of advocacy for women's rights include the reduction of gender roles and equalizing of both sexes as a means of eliminating misogyny. Maybe if I keep pushing this watered down and completely stripped understanding of a philosophy I have little to no understanding of in its current form[assumption], then I can make them look wrong because they can't ague with it." keep trying [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Symbol_thumbs_up.svg/20px-Symbol_thumbs_up.svg.png[/IMG][/quote] I'm literally just going by the definitions in encyclopedias and on wikipedia. You have a differing definition than them.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237742]I don't get how you can preach an ideology when the pioneers of that ideology hated you and worked against your interests.[/quote] im sorry what [quote]Wouldn't men being disadvantaged by institutionalized misogyny just be another name for misandry?[/QUOTE] No, because the disadvantaging of men is a side effect of, and not the focus of, misogyny. In most cases, the disadvantage towards men came about because historically it was beneficial or thought to be beneficial towards men (custodial rights being more frequently given to women, for instance, and also male disposability).
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237780']im sorry what [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto[/url] are you daft?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237742]I don't get how you can preach an ideology when the pioneers of that ideology hated you and worked against your interests.[/QUOTE] But those women weren't the "pioneers" of feminism, and, more importantly: their beliefs aren't in any way mainstream in the current, larger feminist movement? If you want to argue, you should probably do it with facts that are actually true. [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237742]Wouldn't men being disadvantaged by institutionalized misogyny just be another name for misandry?[/QUOTE] No. No it wouldn't. Misogyny (and the hypothetical "misandry") are belief systems. Men might sometimes be disadvantaged, but that disadvantage is never the product of any sort of belief system that says that men are inferior. Women don't get paid as much as men because of the belief that women aren't as skilled as workers as men. Men can have a hard time winning custody battles, but that's because of the deeply-ingrained belief in our society that raising children is a woman's job (again, because women are supposedly less fit for the workforce). It's a [I]misogynist[/I] belief that can sometimes make things harder for men. It's nuanced but it's not actually complicated.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237742] How can you have extreme neutral? If something that is neutral has the ability to be extreme then it can't be neutral by definition. I'm literally just going by the definitions in encyclopedias and on wikipedia. You have a differing definition than them.[/QUOTE] You're right it's extreme. Get this, there are extremes to everything and they generally do not fit in with the wider movement. Which is exactly why half the time these extremes are disowned by the wider movement or classified differently. But the moment that we say "well that's not really feminism" then we're going to get shitcanned like always because it's convenient for you to talk around in circles to convince everyone that those extremists are feminists and that they are representative of it. As it is often the case you can not judge entire many decade long movements with volumes of philosophy and theory behind them that is living and changing and evolving and which many thousand of people have contributed to and added to and taken from by one or two lines in a dictionary or Wikipedia. Those lines are simply great for giving the fundamental and broad understanding of the basis of any socio-economic and political movement, group, or theory, but is not something one should judge an entire movement off of. Once again, judge the book by the cover because it fits your personal beliefs to not actually have to understand the contemporary and past theory and philosophy, aims and goals. That would just be too hard of work!
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237780'] No, because the disadvantaging of men is a side effect of, and not the focus of, misogyny. In most cases, the disadvantage towards men came about because historically it was beneficial or thought to be beneficial towards men (custodial rights being more frequently given to women, for instance, and also male disposability).[/QUOTE] About custodial rights, they're actually given to the father more often when he asks for it, which is one third of cases IIRC. When he doesn't ask, it's given to the mother, and the rest is joint custody agreements [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] IIRC it was in here [url]http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/bias.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237794][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto[/url] are you daft?[/QUOTE] shit man how could I not realize you were referring to a decades old minority-view extremist book in the second or third iteration of a movement. man how completely DAFT can i be to be confused at how this book is actually one of the foundation tenets of the ideology i am supporting! see previous post to understand why you're a tool because this is case in point
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];43237825']You're right it's extreme. Get this, there are extremes to everything and they generally do not fit in with the wider movement. Which is exactly why half the time these extremes are disowned by the wider movement or classified differently. But the moment that we say "well that's not really feminism" then we're going to get shitcanned like always because it's convenient for you to talk around in circles to convince everyone that those extremists are feminists and that they are representative of it. [/QUOTE] Or it's more convenient for you to disown anything that you don't agree with within your own movement, despite it receiving a different reception upon it's creation.
[QUOTE=Supacasey;43234463]My younger brother was accused of rape by his ex-gf. He was found guilty primarily due to the fact that she had a few bruises from a fight they had, [B]though no-one cared about the fact that he had a few as well.[/B] He lost his job and is now serving six months in prison, and will [I]maybe[/I] be able to get this expunged from his record after an additional six months of anger management. Shortly after the sentencing she started poking fun at him over instagram and twitter with her friends, and he can't respond due to the fact that [I]she[/I] now has a restraining order against [I]him[/I] which apparently means she can talk to him all she wants but he can't even ask her to stop without violating it. What's worse is this shit's not totally unheard of anymore in the town we grew up in. So yeah, I'd say there's a false report problem.[/QUOTE] Bold: And? It's not out of the question that a rape victim could try to hit their attacker back. "The guy has a few bruises too" doesn't disqualify him from being a rapist. Not that I'm saying your brother's a rapist, but in the eyes of the law, "the guy has bruises" doesn't mean anything in terms of whether he's a rapist. [QUOTE=Supacasey;43234597]They were fighting each other, neither one was overbearingly beating on the other. It was about another girl, I was there.[/QUOTE] Did they even do a rape kit or anything? Did they go off and have sex afterwards or something? What a crappy situation. ---------- False rape accusations are much rarer than actual rapes. It's not that they don't happen, but they don't happen much more often than false accusations for other crimes. [quote][url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women]THE CLAIM Close to half or even more of the sexual assaults reported by women never occurred. Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped. Such claims are also sometimes made by men involved in court custody battles. THE REALITY This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were “false.” But Kanin’s methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings. Kanin researched only one unnamed Midwestern town, and he did not spell out the criteria police used to decide an allegation was false. The town also polygraphed or threatened to polygraph all alleged victims, a now-discredited practice that is known to cause many women to drop their complaint even when it is true. In fact, most studies that suggest high rates of false accusations make a key mistake — equating reports described by police as “unfounded” with those that are false. The truth is that unfounded reports very often include those for which no corroborating evidence could be found or where the victim was deemed an unreliable witness (often because of drug or alcohol use or because of prior sexual contact with the attacker). They also include those cases where women recant their accusations, often because of a fear of reprisal, a distrust of the legal system or embarrassment because drugs or alcohol were involved. The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.[/url][/quote] This one isn't from a news, but a blog, so you have to take it with a grain of salt, but no more or less than any other anecdote. [url=http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/23/i-am-a-false-rape-allegation-statistic/]"I am a false rape allegation statistic"[/url]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237873]Or it's more convenient for you to disown anything that you don't agree with within your own movement, despite it receiving a different reception upon it's creation.[/QUOTE] Yo duuuude, you're not actually saying anything. People are tossing all these logical arguments at you for the importance of the fight against misogyny and you're just saying "Well what about this one book? It was a super important book when it came out (you'll have to take my word for it) and it's still important, somehow, despite not actually being accepted within the movement." Dude, I know what the SCUM manifesto was and, as someone who (I personally feel) is at least a little knowledgeable about feminism, I can tell you that it's not nor has it ever been an important part of mainstream feminism. Like you haven't successfully convinced me that you've done any more research than a cursory read of a few wikipedia articles.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237873]Or it's more convenient for you to disown anything that you don't agree with within your own movement, despite it receiving a different reception upon it's creation.[/QUOTE] Do you see me disowning them? They're extremists within the movement, I'm not responsible for, nor is any feminist, for defending views which are at the extreme of the general movement. Take for instance the fact that I'm a libertarian socialist. I'm a radical within my own political movement, and though I go as far as to say that Stalin was not truly a socialist or a communist by the definition of the majority socialists or communists, I'm more or less still forced to admit that he was only because the public perception of these ideas makes him out to be and he himself professes it. But would you expect me, or the current president of France, or Senator Sanders from Vermont, to accept Stalin as part of their or my socialist philosophy? The idiocy of claiming that moderates, majoritarians, or radicals must accept and cater to extremist views and can not disown those who are clearly not sharing their philosophy is ridiculous. This is exactly the definition of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy]association fallacy[/url]. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] Like, literally you're saying that "Well regardless of if they have completely different views than you and only share a few fundamental values they are the same as you and are not something different."
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237794][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto[/url] are you daft?[/QUOTE] this just in the taliban represents all muslims peta represents all animal rights activists al gore represents all environmentalists
You can't just read a wikipedia article and say to yourself "welp now I am informed enough to make calls about what was and wasn't and 'important part of the feminist ideology.'" I mean I'm not the smartest or most informed guy in the world but I feel like I at least have enough knowledge about the subject to tell you that what you're saying is bullshit.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43234402]Like you said, probably nothing. But the idea is clearly to raise awareness and that's hardly a revolutionary concept when it comes to protesting.[/QUOTE] You're acting as if this is some widespread problem that gets absolutely no attention. It's not widespread. And it does get attention. It gets proportionally more public attention than actual cases of false rape claims.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237873]Or it's more convenient for you to disown anything that you don't agree with within your own movement, despite it receiving a different reception upon it's creation.[/QUOTE] at this point you are essentially the equivalent of someone saying anyone who is muslim is just in denial that sharia law is the fundamental foundation stone of the religion and that it represents the entire religion, even though sharia law is just a really dodgy interpretation of the quran that has been spun into an extremist movement today you can't take an extremist book written decades after the initial feminists started writing and be like "yeh well look here this is your gospel now what your move asshole"
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43237794][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto[/url] are you daft?[/QUOTE] Aside from all the other rebuttals, you know the author later in life basically said it was satirical, right? (EDIT: Rather shitastic satire at that IMO) She also suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was hospitalized for it, so either way it's to be taken with a grain of salt.
If Facepunch spent as much time and energy raising awareness of legitimate womens issues as they do bitching about Tumblr Feminists(tm) we might actually make a little bit of progress.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.