• WikiLeaks offers $20,000 for help finding DNC staffer’s killer amid conspiracy rumors
    150 replies, posted
I think you're late to the delusions of Conscript party. He's the most insane user on Facepunch. I don't debate with him. I debate with literally everyone else on this forum, but Conscript is unique in that he does not remotely live on the same plane of reality. When someone is this bizarre you just don't know how to even formulate a response. Interestingly, I've seen him speak positively of racists like the alt-right. I guess Communists need to somehow keep up with the times.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50863680]If this is true than I don't see how anyone could take Assange and by extension Wikileaks serious again.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://warisboring.com/has-wikileaks-been-infiltrated-by-russian-spies-b876a8bc035a#.7oke667ms"]This article[/URL], while not from the most reputable source, highlights exactly why I think Assange and WikiLeaks are either cooperating with or being outright run by Russian intelligence. It cites all of its major claims, and while it's 100% conjecture, it makes a lot of sense. The entire "Russia is infiltrating our elections" shit the DNC threw around when their shit started getting leaked seemed like a really blatant smokescreen/distraction tactic at first, but I'm starting to find it more convincing. Putin's been getting more aggressive and Cold-War-esque since Crimea, and I'm starting to buy into the idea that they're purposely trying to de-legitimize the US election system. There's issues with our electoral system, nobody will deny that, but the DNC leaks I've seen haven't been as damning as people make them out to be - especially compared to Russia just flat-out faking votes in one of the least democratic systems in the developed world. I'm glad the DNC's bullshit is getting exposed, but I'm starting to wonder if it's just the Kremlin vying for power by trying to influence the election in favor of Trump, knowing that he's an egoistic fool who would benefit Russia enormously in both politics and trade.
Nobody denies Russia has gotten more aggressive and meddling in our politics. The argument is why this is happening, and of course if we do the same. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;50863766]You are living in a world of delusions. Bless up dude, I feel sorry for you[/QUOTE] The Russia card has been brought up numerous times for leftists, euro-nationalists, and now those like wikileaks and anonymous. To their credit, RT gives air time to both progressives like Thom Hartmann and far rightists.
You mean it gives air time to whatever unscrupulous person is willing to sell their souls and credibility to shill on behalf of the Kremlin for a quick buck
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50864020]You mean it gives air time to whatever unscrupulous person is willing to sell their souls and credibility to shill on behalf of the Kremlin for a quick buck[/QUOTE] Yea. Russia is a shitty, corrupt country with a cynical foreign policy that deflects from its issues with nationalism. It's not like we disagree on this, nobody is defending putinism as this glorious conservative alternative that'll solve the west's problems. But do I think it's funny the faltering liberal political center is being attacked from the nationalist right now? Do I think it's amusing a country we showed no interest in liberalizing and instead created a European project to their expense is throwing shit back in our face? Fuck yes I do, it's illustrative of how the 'end of history' never happened and that when your prosperity ran dry, our class and race problems we deal with (in America anyway) came straight back to the fore. You couldn't even transcend the east-west divide after one side wholly capitulated, for fuck's sake. Meanwhile, brexit. I'm pretty certain this'll go down in history as a time when liberalism just kinda failed, a consensus built on a bubble has burst.
The sheer lack of self-awareness in this thread is astounding. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50862459]I don't know about Assange's links to Russia. I do know he is a liar deliberately targeting the DNC and Clinton's campaign with half-baked conspiracy theories that people greedily gobble up thanks to an inherent dislike of her character. They are burning all of their integrity in an attempt to manipulate this election and going well beyond the bounds of reason in doing so.[/QUOTE] Let me get this straight, you're accusing Assange of trying to tip the scales of the election by exposing the fact that Hillary/the DNC were [i]actually[/i] working to tip the scales of the election. [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862112]Yes, that's all they're doing. Nothing to do with stirring up Clinton kill list conspiracies (likely to benefit Russia and Trump) at all. They just want to solve a good old ordinary murder.[/QUOTE] And you're accusing Assange of propagating conspiracy theories while yourself making totally unsubstantiated claims about him having ties to Russia.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;50864317]The sheer lack of self-awareness in this thread is astounding. Let me get this straight, you're accusing Assange of trying to tip the scales of the election by exposing the fact that Hillary/the DNC were [i]actually[/i] working to tip the scales of the election. And you're accusing Assange of propagating conspiracy theories while yourself making totally unsubstantiated claims about him having ties to Russia.[/QUOTE] Just because the DNC is corrupt doesn't mean that Assange isn't. WikiLeaks leaked genuine information that shows the DNC has some major issues - okay, there's a problem there, absolutely. That needs to be addressed. There's no denying that the DNC had a pro-Hillary bent - "rigging the elections" is a step too far based on the evidence available, but yeah, they were unfairly pro-Hillary, no doubt. But why hasn't WikiLeaks released [i]any[/i] leaks about the GOP or Russia in years? Why haven't they said anything negative about either group this entire election cycle, while they've been ripping on the DNC throughout the whole thing? The GOP tried [i]hard as shit[/i] to rig their primaries against Trump - but that gets a free pass? The fact that the DNC email hacks have almost [I]entirely[/I] been sourced from Russia, that Assange has his own sponsored TV show on Russia's propaganda channel, and that Assange told Snowden to flee to Russia instead of South America... it doesn't look good. I can say the DNC is corrupt based on the leaked emails and also say that Assange/WikiLeaks is working with Russia to influence the elections. The fact that WikiLeaks is [i]offering a cash reward[/i] for info about Seth Rich's murder is gross and blatantly politicized - they don't have any evidence that he was killed by the DNC, so they're [i]paying[/i] people to provide that evidence. They're making the assumption before the facts are in.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;50864317] Let me get this straight, you're accusing Assange of trying to tip the scales of the election by exposing the fact that Hillary/the DNC were [I]actually[/I] working to tip the scales of the election. [/QUOTE] You're misrepresenting my position and should perhaps take your own advice regarding awareness. I had my suspicions about Wikileaks for years prior to this election, the "jump the shark" moment was this offer and Assange's duplicitous attitude regarding a homicide victim. My beef with them isn't because they are leaking DNC emails, it's that they have oriented themselves from whistleblower to political activists. As isak explained, you can readily denounce both the DNC's treatment of Sanders and the far more aggregious claims being made by Assange. This is politics, not a team sport.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862081]It's good to see more and more people realising that Assange isn't just a good guy looking for the truth but in reality is an unhinged narcissist in contact with Russia, and to see more and more people turning against them and him.[/QUOTE] I see the propaganda is working on this dude. do you also think edward snowden should be arrested and chelsea manning should be put to death
Chelsea Manning is rightly in prison. Edward Snowden is a much more complicated case but I lean towards leniency and a pardon.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50864388]Just because the DNC is corrupt doesn't mean that Assange isn't. WikiLeaks leaked genuine information that shows the DNC has some major issues - okay, there's a problem there, absolutely. That needs to be addressed. There's no denying that the DNC had a pro-Hillary bent - "rigging the elections" is a step too far based on the evidence available, but yeah, they were unfairly pro-Hillary, no doubt. But why hasn't WikiLeaks released [i]any[/i] leaks about the GOP or Russia in years? Why haven't they said anything negative about either group this entire election cycle, while they've been ripping on the DNC throughout the whole thing? The GOP tried [i]hard as shit[/i] to rig their primaries against Trump - but that gets a free pass? The fact that the DNC email hacks have almost [I]entirely[/I] been sourced from Russia, that Assange has his own sponsored TV show on Russia's propaganda channel, and that Assange told Snowden to flee to Russia instead of South America... it doesn't look good. I can say the DNC is corrupt based on the leaked emails and also say that Assange/WikiLeaks is working with Russia to influence the elections. The fact that WikiLeaks is [i]offering a cash reward[/i] for info about Seth Rich's murder is gross and blatantly politicized - they don't have any evidence that he was killed by the DNC, so they're [i]paying[/i] people to provide that evidence. They're making the assumption before the facts are in.[/QUOTE] There are endless explanations as to why Wikileaks hasn't leaked info on Russia or the GOP in some time. The most obvious being that Wikileaks is a publisher. If they aren't being fed material to leak, then none is leaked. And I never meant to imply Assange didn't have a bias, but that it's nonsensical to criticize him for damaging [i]poor Hillary[/i] when it would never have been possible if not for her own corrupt actions. "Evidence" of Assange working with the Kremlin remains purely circumstantial. I can't imagine most politically-connected media networks in the West would be eager to give Assange an outlet. It's also easy to see why Snowden would be safer in Russia than South America. As for Assange's stunt with Seth Rich, I don't understand his angle. Maybe he has a genuine suspicion, maybe it's purely a political stunt as many in this thread have proposed. Regardless, I doubt Assange needs the Kremlin to tell him to dislike Clinton. His whole mission has been to force government transparency - Clinton is basically Nixon with tits.
Usage of the word Kool-Aid and being a loon seem to have a very strong positive correlation
Nonono guys don't you see, it's all a Russian ploy to discret Hillary's flawless reputation as a truthful and upstanding... bwahahaha, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
tbh $20000 really isn't that much considering the dnc could offer considerably much more than that as incentive not to talk if they really did do it
I think all of us here might be missing the forest for the trees, as it were. Was there even anything in the DNC leaks incriminating enough for the DNC to target Rich? Such an operation would cause tremendous blowback and possibly kill the Democratic party outright and I feel what we learned from the leaks wasn't really that surprising.
[media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763852003093217280[/media]
[QUOTE=Wii60;50870751][media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763852003093217280[/media][/QUOTE] Grasping at straws. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Matthew0505;50877135]That's not the impression I got from your concern trolling about Russian interference earlier.[/QUOTE] Firstly, define concern trolling Secondly, the content of the leaks were suspicions i had since campaign season began; that DNC leadership was going to back Clinton over the Independent who jumped on party wagon for exposure. Nothing in the DNC emails came close to incriminating in a criminal or civil sense. Regardless I take seriously the idea that foreign governments may be working to compromise American cybersecurity, especially to tilt an election. If China hacked the RNC and aired its dirty laundry i would have the same reaction.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50862112]Yes, that's all they're doing. Nothing to do with stirring up Clinton kill list conspiracies (likely to benefit Russia and Trump) at all. They just want to solve a good old ordinary murder.[/QUOTE] Unless you think Clinton did it... i don't understand the reasoning behind seeing this as bad. Heck, Clinton should have been the one putting down the money, it would be a pr win by far since its pretty much a non argument to claim she is somehow less presidential then trump, and it would clear most of the suspicion since if she did hire a hitman that hitman is not gonna fucking like this and probably be more likely to surface. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50877145]Nothing in the DNC emails came close to incriminating in a criminal or civil sense.[/QUOTE] Factually inaccurate. Both sending classified information to people not certified to handle it and removing classifications from the documents is a federal offence. also perjury concerning her emails and the hearings, not following legal code concerning government communications, sending classified information to foreign nationals and governments. collusion against the law. if she did this during ww2, she would have gotten the death penalty a couple times over. sadly these days only the plebs get that kind of treatment. edit: sorry, i thought you meant the clinton emails in general... yes in principle the DNC related emails were just highly immoral, revealing the DNC as a massive deception and contained noting more then petty fraud at most.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877191]Unless you think Clinton did it... i don't understand the reasoning behind seeing this as bad. Heck, Clinton should have been the one putting down the money, it would be a pr win by far since its pretty much a non argument to claim she is somehow less presidential then trump, and it would clear most of the suspicion since if she did hire a hitman that hitman is not gonna fucking like this and probably be more likely to surface.[/QUOTE] Two problems with your teerrible idea 1) It adds validity to an absolutely asanine conspiracy theory and 2) No one believes she or the DNC orchestrated an assassination. There is no suspicion to clear, no hearts to win. I don't know if Assange really believes he was targeted but he is certainly poking the embers [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877191] Factually inaccurate. Both sending classified information to people not certified to handle it and removing classifications from the documents is a federal offence. also perjury concerning her emails and the hearings, not following legal code concerning government communications, sending classified information to foreign nationals and governments. collusion against the law. if she did this during ww2, she would have gotten the death penalty a couple times over. sadly these days only the plebs get that kind of treatment.[/QUOTE] This is why no one takes you seriously
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877200]Two problems with your teerrible idea 1) It adds validity to an absolutely asanine conspiracy theory and 2) No one believes she or the DNC orchestrated an assassination. [B]There is no suspicion to clear, no hearts to win.[/B] I don't know if Assange really believes he was targeted but he is certainly poking the embers[/QUOTE] 1) The email thing already added enough validation... the fact she would come out and say 'you know, those emails and stuff... yea, sure, im a politician. but this is just rediculous... this vileness has to stop so im donating X to anyone who can solve the case. I know my name will be cleared. 2) The conspiracies are fuel for trump when the debates happen, and people already massively distrust her... its damage control and it would be worth it for her since her trustworthyness being pretty much zero in most public queries is the only thing letting trump still be a viable candidate.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877191] edit: sorry, i thought you meant the clinton emails in general... yes in principle the DNC related emails were just highly immoral, revealing the DNC as a massive deception and contained noting more then petty fraud at most.[/QUOTE] Why did you think I meant Clinton emails when i specifically said DNC leaks? In any case "petty fraud" is an exaggeration; there is just nothing there and blowback consisted of a small bruise to the party's image. With this in mind why on earth would they have this supposed source killed in a way that, if discovered, would utterly destroy the party.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877200] This is why no one takes you seriously[/QUOTE] Then take the FBI report about the mails seriously... its where i got that information from. Yes, you were talking about the DNC mails... but the point about the Clinton mails in general is in the FBI rapport. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50877211]Why did you think I meant Clinton emails when i specifically said DNC leaks? In any case "petty fraud" is an exaggeration; there is just nothing there and blowback consisted of a small bruise to the party's image. With this in mind why on earth would they have this supposed source killed in a way that, if discovered, would utterly destroy the party.[/QUOTE] We were talking about hillary clinton specifically and I saw the c at the end and read HRC instead of DNC, I corrected myself in an edit. either way the DNC mails are an integral part of the HRC mail scandal and are related. Trying to only talk about the DNC leaks has value, but in my opinion that value is questionable when talking about hillary clinton and her conspiracies.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877210]1) The email thing already added enough validation... the fact she would come out and say 'you know, those emails and stuff... yea, sure, im a politician. but this is just rediculous... this vileness has to stop so im donating X to anyone who can solve the case. I know my name will be cleared. 2) The conspiracies are fuel for trump when the debates happen, and people already massively distrust her... its damage control and it would be worth it for her since her trustworthyness being pretty much zero in most public queries is the only thing letting trump still be a viable candidate.[/QUOTE] Trump accusing Clinton of assassinating a DNC staffer on the stage of a national debate would backfire massively. All Clinton would have to do is point out the fact that Rich wasn't the source which is by all accounts factual then bring up the fact that his parents want no part in this nonsense. The only people Trump could sell that steaming pile to are people who already believe the various Clinton assassination conspiracies. Like if you live in a bubble where everyone hates Clinton maybe it would make sense for Hillary to validate it or Trump to use it against her but in reality you can only tell people to suspend their disbelief so far before they start asking questions like "but why".
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877234]Trump accusing Clinton of assassinating a DNC staffer on the stage of a national debate would backfire massively. All Clinton would have to do is point out the fact that Rich wasn't the source which is by all accounts factual then bring up the fact that his parents want no part in this nonsense. The only people Trump could sell that steaming pile to are people who already believe the various Clinton assassination conspiracies. Like if you live in a bubble where everyone hates Clinton maybe it would make sense for Hillary to validate it or Trump to use it against her but in reality you can only tell people to suspend their disbelief so far before they start asking questions like "but why".[/QUOTE] You might not be aware but hillary and trump are both nr 1 and 2 on the most disliked presidential candidates of the US in recorded history. [IMG]http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/enten-generaldislike-1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=1150&ssl=1[/IMG] So yea, i believe it would work, and i am reasonably sure if trump makes it to the debate you can be damn sure hed mention it.
Like I said a high disapproval rating only gets you so far. If he drops this in a debate and somehow survives being skewered by the moderator the front page of every website and newspaper would be shattering the narrative.
It's really disturbing how some people in this thread are so naive they dismiss possibility of Russian involvement as a "conspiracy theory". Don't be dumb, the Kremlin has a big reputation bribing and infiltrating organizations such as wikileaks.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877295]Like I said a high disapproval rating only gets you so far. If he drops this in a debate and somehow survives being skewered by the moderator the front page of every website and newspaper would be shattering the narrative.[/QUOTE] TBH it could be wishful thinking on my end but i hope to god these 2 candidates self destruct each other. Then again im pretty sure trump will win the debates, if it tips the game in his favour enough i doubt but he has far too much easy dirt on her. All trump has to do is veer off from the issues to win. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ghost656;50877307]It's really disturbing how some people in this thread are so naive they dismiss possibility of Russian involvement as a "conspiracy theory". Don't be dumb, the Kremlin has a big reputation bribing and infiltrating organizations such as wikileaks.[/QUOTE] "Hey all, please dont look at this dirt the Russians released of us, because you know... the Russians did it" Its still all dirt, no matter who releases it. waving it away because your political enemies revealed it is just idiotic, if the candidates would play transparent we would not need the Russians to do this.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877318]TBH it could be wishful thinking on my end but i hope to god these 2 candidates self destruct each other. Then again im pretty sure trump will win the debates, if it tips the game in his favour enough i doubt but he has far too much easy dirt on her. All trump has to do is veer off from the issues.[/QUOTE] It's the opposite at this point. All Clinton has to do is coast. Trump had that that luxury until he left the RNC with the only dip in Republican history and is currently shooting himself successfully in both feet. The general election is for swinging independents and I don't see this supposed dirt having more of an impact in September than it does now.
[QUOTE=Conscript;50862632][B]Actually they do, because the neutral aegis of a whistleblower necessarily pits you against the system and therefore the center. You don't get to paint them as agents of the left, right, or Russia just because they benefit.[/B] That's flashmarsh-tier bullshit The politicization of something like Wikileaks is down to wider polarization and is a necessary step, not to mention in response to political developments at the top. It is not wikileaks that made our party of the left shills for restricting privacy, regime change, and so on. They are anti-establishment because with this election cycle it is abundantly clear that both parties serve the same interests based on their own behavior. In 2016 the question has changed from left or right to something else for different people Nationalists: nationalism or globalism Socialists/leftists: socialism or globalism Wikileaks/anonymous: humanism/transparency or globalism And clinton legitimately represents this nebulous 'globalism' essentially because Bill created the 'third way' by pushing for NAFTA/repeal of glass steagall while being an interventionist abroad, and Hillary is no less a bought out neoliberal hawk. They both got rich off going around the world forging ties with very powerful people who agree on one, detached consensus, and as rockefeller-tier philanthropists all of them have taken it upon themselves to institute it. Without saying it, people are thinking liberalism's end of history is a dystopia. That's the source of recent polarization. To different people it's associated with either a decline of the west, a gutting of left parties and the power of labor, or growth of state power while reducing transparency and freedom. We judged fascism and communism as being on the wrong side of history, but we never had a chance to do so with liberalism as plutocratic 'democracy'. Now, as the sole survivor the 20th century, it is happening and thank god for that.[/QUOTE] You don't get to put yourself 'above' the political discourse and then dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a neoliberal shill. You are generalising a wide range of people who hold a large variety of nuanced opinions in order to suit your supposed 'anti-establishment' beliefs. The reality is you're just as much a part of this 'establishment' as much as Flashmarsh or anyone else, you live on this planet like everyone else and you have to compromise, like everybody else, can't just opt out of that because you feel like it. You're moving the goal posts, calling everyone part of the polarization of left or right in order to put yourself above it and put yourself above criticism. You can call everyone a shill because no matter what they say or do, they're supporting what you perceive as the establishment while nothing you do can be seen as inherently political because you're supposedly "above all that". [QUOTE=Conscript;50863743]There's no liberal-democratic smokescreen for the state of russian politics? People believe they have representation in the West? Being opposed to Russia is common, whereas (as flashmarsh exhibits) being 'anti-Western' is taboo? No seriously, from the standpoint of anyone humanist concerned with democracy and capitalism, Russia isn't a top priority. It's a given, a closed case, actually. Why have alternative journalists investigate something mainstream media and your own government have already made conclusions on? For the same reason many people in this thread are anti-Assange, they see a political edge to criticizing liberal democracy as plutocratic, opaque, and working contrary to national and working class interests. On another note, I hate to Godwin and I never do it, but there's an interesting parallel. Nobody could talk about, during the last struggle with modernity, international communism and capitalism without mentioning Jews, and after this election nobody will be able to talk about 'anti-globalism' whether in a left, right, or apolitical form without mentioning Russia.[/QUOTE] People, including me, flashmarsh, Raidyr and other people on this very website, criticize western governments and western institutions all the time. Are you suggesting that because, in this one case, people are skeptical of a conspiracy theory that the Clinton people are having dudes killed secretly, that means that we're all neoliberal shills or something? [QUOTE=Conscript;50864009]Nobody denies Russia has gotten more aggressive and meddling in our politics. The argument is why this is happening, and of course if we do the same.[/QUOTE] Of course we have our own spying networks, or at least the US government does, the average everyday citizen has nothing to do with it and you shouldn't put the blame on people for that. However, if you're seriously suggesting that the living standards and political gerrymandering of that in the West is seriously comparable or in the same ballpark as that of the rigged elections and state propaganda in Russia, you might be seriously delusional. [QUOTE]The Russia card has been brought up numerous times for leftists, euro-nationalists, and now those like wikileaks and anonymous. To their credit, RT gives air time to both progressives like Thom Hartmann and far rightists.[/QUOTE] It's brought up by literally everyone, left or right, because the Russian government is actually really fucking terrible, so much so that everybody knows it, repeats it constantly and will continue to repeat it constantly until something changes because that's how change happens. Literally everyone criticises Russia regardless of their political afirmations. How does this prove anything asside from "The Russian government is actually terrible and everyone agrees". The only way this can make any sense to you is if you put yourself on some pedestall above "literally everyone" like I explained earlier, why are you the only one allowed to have a nuanced opinion and literally everyone else who holds any kind of opinion on the matter is a shill for the establishment? [QUOTE=Conscript;50864028]Yea. Russia is a shitty, corrupt country with a cynical foreign policy that deflects from its issues with nationalism. It's not like we disagree on this, nobody is defending putinism as this glorious conservative alternative that'll solve the west's problems. But do I think it's funny the faltering liberal political center is being attacked from the nationalist right now? Do I think it's amusing a country we showed no interest in liberalizing and instead created a European project to their expense is throwing shit back in our face? Fuck yes I do, it's illustrative of how the 'end of history' never happened and that when your prosperity ran dry, our class and race problems we deal with (in America anyway) came straight back to the fore. You couldn't even transcend the east-west divide after one side wholly capitulated, for fuck's sake. Meanwhile, brexit. I'm pretty certain this'll go down in history as a time when liberalism just kinda failed, a consensus built on a bubble has burst.[/QUOTE] This class-division and fucking brexit stuff doesn't come from left-wing liberals, democrats, progressives or even neoconservatives like Flashmarsh, it comes from nationalists and racist or xenophobic or misinformed people. You really need to group everybody else but you into some big messy ball and ignore any kind of nuance or variety of opinion to come to this conclusion that everyone is conspiring together when we really, really do hate each others guts.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877318] "Hey all, please dont look at this dirt the Russians released of us, because you know... the Russians did it" Its still all dirt, no matter who releases it. waving it away because your political enemies revealed it is just idiotic, if the candidates would play transparent we would not need the Russians to do this.[/QUOTE] WikiLeaks doesn't have dirt in this case, they have an incredibly shoddy narrative that counters the facts US authorities have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.