The One True Minority

I think that western society is very compassionate toward the disabled.

Life is cruel. Sometimes all of us are cruel, but on the whole we make it possible for a lot of people to live productive lives, who in a less compassionate world might not be able to sustain life, at all.

In the last few decades, I have been appalled by the militant disabled, who push through needless legislation and, in essence, bite the hand that feeds them.

There is always more that can be done to help people, but a little more gratitude and a little less arrogance and "entitlementalism" on the part of some sectors of society might be in order.

Lest anyone think that I speak from a privileged position, I have my own hardships and disablilities, though I do consider myself to be among the luckiest of men, and I have family members who have profound disabilities.

archive.salon.com...

alertandalarmed.blogspot.com

www.neenaw.co.uk

[edit on 2007/6/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Nice. So far I`ve been called a sadist, 'biggoted' (Perhaps you mean 'bigoted'?), insecure (funny how I predicted that one would be thrown out there), guilty (I can assure you I feel no guilt whatsoever for holding and expressing my opinions, nice try though), and childish. Nice.

Another poster inferred my 'ignorance' was a violation of the ATS T+C of Use. Apparently this person has confused the posession of a dissenting opinion with the state of ignorance. However, I wonder, in light of the above, if name-calling towards a fellow ATS user is also a violation of the T+C? Perhaps a Mod could shed some light on that for us. I, for one, would be intrigued to know what the ATS policy on name-calling directed toward a fellow boardmember is.

Regardless, the only reply I recieved that I feel displayed a comprehension of what I originally stated was Chissler's post, so that's the one I`ll be responding to. Despite the fact that we seem to disagree on the issue, his response displayed some civility, and I do want you to know Chissler that I appreciate that.

And I never meant to infer, Chissler, that you didn`t work as hard as myself or anyone else. From the context of what you said it sounds as though you are definitely dedicated towards your work, and I respect the heck out of that. And if that`s the case, then that`s the exact reason that you should be able to see my side of the issue. Because there`s a difference between charity which is given freely, and coerced donations extracted from the populace by force of law. And perhaps you know the feeling of looking at a paycheck and watching the deductions from the government and feeling your heart sink because you wouldn`t have enough to pay the bills even had the deductions not taken place at all, and now there`s even less. Maybe you can relate to what I`m talking about there, and maybe you can`t, but I even if the latter is the case I can tell by your words that you have enough empathy to at least imagine being in that position and maybe you`ll see what I`m talking about, why some of us resent the money- OUR money- that gets taken away from us without our express consent when we don`t have sufficent funds to support an ideal standard of living in the first place. In the end, if need be, we can still disagree- that`s cool, gentlemen can disagree.

Oh, and I know I said I was going to respond only to Chissler here, but to the individual who said that that "Most 'retarded'/handicapped people do not sit in homes drooling"....I beg to differ. I might be willing to accept that proposition had I not seen it firsthand. I`ve seen them walking the streets, incomprehensible, babbling, and yes drooling. Ever lived near one of them that some government buearucrat decided was 'capable of being independant'? Ever heard him or her come outdoors late at night, screaming obscenities at the top of their lungs, for no reason, at nothing (because there`s nothing there)? Ever watch them drool on their lapel as they do so? I`ve seen it many times, and I trust my eyes more than I trust your assertion.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by wagnerian21]

Originally posted by wagnerian21
Nice. So far I`ve been called a sadist, 'biggoted' (Perhaps you mean 'bigoted'?), insecure (funny how I predicted that one would be thrown out there), guilty (I can assure you I feel no guilt whatsoever for holding and expressing my opinions, nice try though), and childish. Nice.

Actually I haven't called you anything. You indirectly asked what type of person condones killing a retarded baby/child and I answered.

Another poster inferred my 'ignorance' was a violation of the ATS T+C of Use.

Denying ignorance is ATS's motto.. however I believe there are limits here on hate speach.

Apparently this person has confused the posession of a dissenting opinion with the state of ignorance.

Assuming an entire group of people are all the same is ignorant.. and you were preaching hate not expressing opinions. You obviously set out to offend a particular group of people and succeeded. You moan about being civil yet you are the one that set out to antagonise.

Oh, and I know I said I was going to respond only to Chissler here, but to the individual who said

Why do you keep referring to me as 'the individual'? Thats akin to giving me the silent treatment and then getting a third person to pass along the insults with me in earshot.. :shk:

that that "Most 'retarded'/handicapped people do not sit in homes drooling"....I beg to differ. I might be willing to accept that proposition had I not seen it firsthand.

You obviously saw a handful firsthand [if at all]. I care for someone with a severe disabilty and they do NOT drool.

I`ve seen them walking the streets, incomprehensible, babbling, and yes drooling. Ever lived near one of them that some government buearucrat decided was 'capable of being independant'? Ever heard him or her come outdoors late at night, screaming obscenities at the top of their lungs, for no reason, at nothing (because there`s nothing there)? Ever watch them drool on their lapel as they do so? I`ve seen it many times, and I trust my eyes more than I trust your assertion.

You sound ridiculous. They are human beings not ferral cats or zombies after the brains of the living. There are members here at ATS who don't do anything of the sort yet have disabilties. You know this so why post it? Because you know it will offend. I honestly felt sick after reading your last post and I'm sure others did as well. What would you have done with the disabled if you had the power? You complain about them being in welfare houses.. but you complain about them being out on the streets [seems they're everywhere where you are.. ]. So whats your solution? Come out and actually say it instead of cowering behind a movie review of 300.

[edit on 14-6-2007 by riley]

Originally posted by wagnerian21
and I do want you to know Chissler that I appreciate that.

I'll be honest, after I read your post the first time.. I was spitting bullets. However, I reread your post a few times and I noticed something. You know what you are talking about. This isn't a hate inspired rant with no base. You've backed up your claims, you've done it in a well written post, and you do it without the emotion that can land some of us in trouble here. While I disagree 100% with everything you've said, and would probably argue with you every second of every day if I knew you in real life, I do respect you as a member here for how you approached this.

Originally posted by wagnerian21
I might be willing to accept that proposition had I not seen it firsthand. I`ve seen them walking the streets, incomprehensible, babbling, and yes drooling. Ever lived near one of them that some government buearucrat decided was 'capable of being independant'? Ever heard him or her come outdoors late at night, screaming obscenities at the top of their lungs, for no reason, at nothing (because there`s nothing there)? Ever watch them drool on their lapel as they do so? I`ve seen it many times, and I trust my eyes more than I trust your assertion.

Have you ever met one of these men or women? Have you ever sat with them and had a meal, while they drool on their lapel? I've worked, ate, walked, talked, etc., with plenty of individuals of varying disabilities, and even those with the worst conditions can comprehend their surroundings. While they may not be able to talk, they do understand. Body language speaks a thousand words, and they know what is being said. This implication that every individual with a disability is a "drooling", "bumbling" idiot is so far off I can not even begin to explain it.

I understand where you come from. Trying to put food on the table and a roof over the head's of our families is no easy task. When those few bucks that we so desperately need are taken from us without permission, it is enough to infuriate anyone. But you are pointing the finger at the wrong people. Point the finger at the bumbling, drooling idiots who sit on the couch every day of the week, who are completely capable of working, but choose not to because it is easier to collect a check than it is to go out and earn one.

You say you are frustrated because your money goes towards someone who's life can not improve. Again, that is so incorrect. The state of their life has so much room for improvement, and they so desperately need it. It's not fair when these individuals go to bed hungry because the government doesn't give them the money they need. It isn't fair that the government gives more money to feed prisoners than it does to feed them.

If you've got a problem with how your money is being spent, look to your government. More of your money is going towards feeding murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc., than it is someone with autism, schizophrenia, etc. More of your money is going towards men and women that choose not to work out of pure laziness, than it is those that can not work. And this is one thing that I do guarantee you... any individual with a disability in our care that is capable of working, they work. They do not sit around the house all day. They get up every morning and they go to work. Which is more than we can say for some of us.

It is not right when our hard earned money is taken from us, and our own children are forced to do without. I agree and I am willing to stand by you on that fight. But pointing the finger at these individuals is not the way to go about it.

There are so many factors at play here that you've overlooked. I hope that you'll see the light and begin to see things in another fashion. If not, I understand and you will have my respect. You are looking out for your children, that is admirable.

But the individuals you point the finger at, they haven't done anything wrong.

May you and yours live a long prosperous life with all of your health.

I look forward to your response.

Originally posted by wagnerian21
Ever watch them drool on their lapel as they do so? I`ve seen it many times...

Nice little rant there, but you neglected to address my question? Would the same rules you espouse apply if you were suddenly flattened by an incapacitating injury or disease? Or worse, if your child were born with spinal bifida, or Down's syndrome, or any of a myriad of conditions that could restrict them from living a so-called 'normal' life...would you pony up all additional costs yourself, or give thanks that you live in a society whose ethics are a tad less Darwinian than your own?

Can we get a response to that?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Nice little rant there, but you neglected to address my question? Would the same rules you espouse apply if you were suddenly flattened by an incapacitating injury or disease? Or worse, if your child were born with spinal bifida, or Down's syndrome, or any of a myriad of conditions that could restrict them from living a so-called 'normal' life...would you pony up all additional costs yourself, or give thanks that you live in a society whose ethics are a tad less Darwinian than your own?

Can we get a response to that?

You want a response?

I`m an artist. I`ve told my loved ones numerous times that should I ever become mentally incapicated and unable to continue creating, there would be no further purpose to my existance and I would not wish to become a burden to them or society at large. Those are MY ethics, and I have the right to them.

There is your response.



[edit on 14-6-2007 by wagnerian21]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by wagnerian21]

Originally posted by chissler

I'll be honest, after I read your post the first time.. I was spitting bullets. However, I reread your post a few times and I noticed something.... I do respect you as a member here for how you approached this.

Again, Chissler, I appreciate that more than you know, and you should know you have an equal amount of respect from me for coming to this with the intellect at the forefront rather than emotion. And while we might indeed argue vehemently over issues like this, to do so and remain a gentleman at the same time takes the highest degree of maturity. Thank you for that.

Originally posted by Chissler

Have you ever worked with one of these men or women?

I must concede that I have not, that the extent of my contact with the mentally disabled has been limited to the conditions I`ve already described, most notably in the part of my post you quoted above. I`ll also happily concede to you that it`s entirely possible the mentally disabled posess a greater degree of perceptual awareness of their surroundings than my experience of them has led me to believe. If that`s the case then I do feel badly for someone in that position if they are aware of their behavior and yet unable to alter it.

Originally posted by Chissler
I understand where you come from.

That`s good, that`s important- because that`s what I was trying to reach here with my other post, some point of mutual understanding even if we do happen to disagree overall.

Originally posted by Chissler
You say you are frustrated because your money goes towards someone who's life can not improve. Again, that is so incorrect.

This depends on one`s definition of 'improved'. Bear in mind here that I`m working under the assumption that the mental condition the individual happens to suffer from is irreversable- because if it can be reversed, then that would be an appropriate use of public funds in my view. But I`ve seen, firsthand, individuals with mental disabilities being put into housing in our communities with public funds, I`ve seen those individuals given food, money...I`ve seen public funds being given to these individuals when they already posess more than many who do work. No, I can`t go into detail on that and I don`t expect unquestioning trust on my descriptions there but I can tell you that I`ve seen funds being used in a way that I feel is unnecessary. Does a person with a mental disability need a high-ticket television? I`ve seen it. I lived down the road. But the assertion often heard from those enabling the problem is that it improves the person`s quality of life. And yes, it`s equally disgusting when public funds are given to someone with no disability but who simply chooses to live as a parasite off society at large. But it dosen`t change the effect on the common guy trying to make ends meet, and that`s who my primary concern is for. I believe those who support society should be given the highest degree of respect from society, above all others.

Originally posted by Chissler
If you've got a problem with how your money is being spent, look to your government....It is not right when our hard earned money is taken from us, and our own children are forced to do without. I agree and I am willing to stand by you on that fight. But pointing the finger at these individuals is not the way to go about it.

What I`m attempting to point the finger at is the philosophy that has enbled the creation of an industry promoting the perception of victimhood at the expense of anyone and everyone too proud to play the victim along with the crowd. At the perception that those who are afflicted are of more value than those who are vital.

I do see what you`re saying here, Chissler, and there is truth in it. I see your side, and I hope you perhaps might see mine as well.

I`m going to stay off this thread from here on out.

Originally posted by wagnerian21I`m an artist. I`ve told my loved ones numerous times that should I ever become mentally incapicated and unable to continue creating, there would be no further purpose to my existance and I would not wish to become a burden to them or society at large. Those are MY ethics, and I have the right to them.

There is your response.

That is a fair response, thank you. Now...part two of my question...what about your child...be hypothetical if need be. Or your parents..should you still be blessed with their presence...what if your father has a stroke. He's all there...but drooling. You communicate by him blinking his eyes. Now what...out behind the barn? Off on an ice floe? Sell your house to pay the bills, or give thanks for socialised medicine (at taxpayer's expense)?

You see my point? You can choose to be stoic, but at what point does 'the quality of mercy' intrude. If not at all...well, that's kinda sad. Barring any personal insults that I might feel inclined to respond to, that pretty much covers it for me...Absum!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think that western society is very compassionate toward the disabled.

I believe western society has come to understand the norms and now know how to mask their ignorance. The member wagnerian21 has graced us with his presence here and offered some serious discussion. Do I feel he is ignorant? Not in the least. He has legitimate concerns and has some issues over how his hard earned money is spent. Rather than sugar coating or hiding his thoughts and feelings, he gave us an honest post and laid it out.

It was nice to see someone actually say it like it is, rather than tippy toeing around what they really want to say.

Does it make it right? No. I feel this frustration is severely misguided, and hopefully through discussion we can redirect that. If not, it would be worth the effort.

But the thoughts and opinions of wagnerian21 are far from a rarity in western society. But it is rare for someone to speak honestly.

Originally posted by chissler
I believe western society has come to understand the norms and now know how to mask their ignorance.

Can you explain what you mean?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Can you explain what you mean?

Well, in the past, it may have been acceptable in society to openly bash an individual with a disability. Just as any black man, any gay man or woman, or any other individual that was simply "different". However, times have changed and society no longer tolerates individuals to openly bash one another. Fifty years ago, what someone could say in public is quite far from what we tolerate today.

We no longer permit people to say these things publicly. What I propose is that some people still feel it, they just refrain from saying it in a public fashion. If questioned on it, they may even go as far as to lie about it to protect their reputation. Individuals with a disability are portrayed as a victim, (rightfully so) and our society loves a victim. Someone who is going to pick on a victim isn't going to be accepted with open arms.

This resent and frustration that wagnerian21 has expressed his very common. But people do not admit it for fear of how they would be perceived. Which is why I have a large amount of respect for this member. While I disagree with what he has said, I respect him for saying what he truly believes. I'd much rather that than someone coming in and gratuitously praising them if they don't mean it.

At least this way we can have a discussion on it.

So in an attempt to get to my point, society today has adapted to the norms. We no longer refer to black men, homosexuals, handicap, etc., in derogatory terms and expect to have it tolerated. Society frowns upon these antisocial behaviours and it has finally begun to see the pain and suffering it causes.

While the issues still exists, the expectations placed on the individuals have drastically changed. If wagnerian21 said some of what he said in a public setting, I'm willing to bet that he'd have a few dirty looks. Some would agree and remain silent, others would offer dirty looks, and a certain few may even get confrontational.

So we are on the right path, but we've still got a road to travel.

It has been a long day and I am ready to turn in for the night. If I am off topic, vague, and or not making any sense.. well, I tried!



[edit on 14-6-2007 by chissler]

Well, I guess that's all true to one extent or another, but in my daily life, I see a multitude of people and the number of people I see with disabilities is staggering.

I think that one of the reasons is that disability is, as you said, less likely to be stigmatized and people go about without fear of being bothered because they, or a family member, have a disability. Part of it is that there are so many appliances that make life not only easier, but possible, today that did not exist only a few years ago.

In the course of any given day, it is not uncommon for me to interact with people who are blind, are crippled and use walkers, canes, wheelchairs, and crutches, people who use oxygen, who have Down's syndrome and other forms of mental retardation, who have Tourette's syndrome, people who have had sex changes, couples who are openly gay and not one of these people, while they are in my presence, is harassed or made to feel inferior in any way. Many are so normal in every other aspect that they can be joked with about their particular condition.

Yes, there are mean-spirited folks who look down on people who are different. That will never change, but I believe that at no time in history have people been more accommodating of people who are "outside the norm" than they are now.

That is why I am put off by the militant disabled.

Albuquerque might be different in terms of being accepting of others, but I don't think it is that much different.


[edit on 2007/6/15 by GradyPhilpott]

I took some time away from this thread and also took the opportunity to speak to Chissler privately regarding the issues raised here and I think after some reflection on the topic at hand I think a few quick words might be appropriate...

Speaking to Chissler actually was a very important experience for me insomuch as it allowed me the opportunity to step back and look at the issue from outside. Because this is a very key issue for me, a very important issue, and I`d become so utterly entwined in my own perspective that I didn`t take the chance to step back and look at the topic from outside of my own perspective, to see the forest for the trees so to speak.

This issue is very close to home for me as I said and while I don`t think it`s appropriate to go into clarify on a public forum exactly what the nature of my exposure to those with mental disabilites was, I do think it`s appropriate to state that while it`s been brought to my attention that I may have been seen as attacking the victim, the real issue that I wanted to bring forward is the divisive and often even destructive influence individuals with mental disabilities can have on communities when they are required to assimilate into society at large. And the insight that I obtained when I looked at the issue from a dispassionate stance for once is that, although this influence may not be the intent of these people, the effects on the communities that they are placed into remain the same.

I`m referring to government programs to de-institutionalize individuals with mental disabilities and place them into the community at large, and the effects those programs have on the local individuals already in the community, which was the nature of my perspective on the issue. Blaming the victim isn`t appropriate. I skirted around the edges of that previously, which was irrational, and for that I apologize to the ATS community.

Nevertheless, I and other acquaintances in my local community have been subject to negative exposure to individuals with mental disabilities, even to the degree of being harassed by them. This has taken place on numerous occasions and often the people I have spoken with on the subject, as well as myself, have felt disinclined to even discuss the issue for fear of being seen as a bully, as attacking the victim, which is utterly unfair to the individuals who have suffered harassment by individuals with mental disorders. Within that context, for myself and my acquaintances to harbor some resentment towards the social institutions that allowed that to happen is, I think, understandable. I think it was legitimate to question as well the nature of how public funds are used towards support of those afflicted with mental disorders. I think it`s legitimate to question whether the community should be exposed to individuals with severe, debilitating mental deficiencies and I think it`s also both appropriate and necessary to ask if that exposure is healthy for those so afflicted.

These questions have bothered me for some time, particularly since my local community has been subject to playing host to large numbers of these individuals, and while there might not be any easy answers to these questions, the discussion itself is valuable.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by wagnerian21]

[edit on 17-6-2007 by wagnerian21]

Originally posted by chissler


To that, all I have to say is September 11th. People did the right thing, because it was the right thing to do. The implication that in the wake of a tragedy, all moral obligations to our fellow man are thrown out the window, I sincerely beg to differ. Has it happened? Yes. Does that mean it is the way the world operates? No.

It seems that we've responded by doing the same things -- putting the Imperial Humvee into overdrive and expecting a different result. At least we haven't "gone nuclear" in Iran and nuked the world economy -- yet.

(S)election O'Hate is shaping up to become the meanest yet with "Obama bin Laden" vs. Rudolph-the-red-faced Giuliani -- or whatever. Count on it thanks to Propaganda Corp. and Genocidal Executioners.

On second thought, I should refrain from saying "whatever" since that's dismissive.

Hell no! We won't go! Now that's going along to get along!!!

From what I've seen, AmeriKKKans are only getting worse as both the right and left slide further to the reich.

I agree totally with the OP...I have that particular minority on my mind pretty much all the time, because I married one. I may not know what it's like to have such disabilities, but I know what daily life is like for the disabled. We've been married for about 8 years now and I have to admit that it's not a problem that only the diabled themselves have to cope with, but also the people that are close to them have to cope with the extra help they need.

Some of my wife's disabilities manifested at birth, but most were due to accidents that she's suffered that left permanent effects. Her disabilities range both physical & mental. "There, but for the Grace of God, go I" comes to my mind quite often.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Much of the problem really is just plain discrimination, or maybe even the failure to discriminate in an appropriate and constructive manner.

Many of these disabled people are just that -- those whose abilities were thwarted. Many are more intelligent and have longer, steeper learning curves, probably due to more complex thought processes. Neurotypicals (tragically as many as 9,625 out of 10,000 individuals) focus solely on the "big picture" and are incapable of zooming back and forth between levels of detail.

The fail to follow a bottom out apporach and amass enough data in order to develop an intelligent hypothesis; They start with conventional wisdom or just plain hot air before taking the top-down approach. They even fail to realize that they lack a theory-of-mind. They do not know what neuroatypicals know and how they know it. Nor do they really seem interested in finding out.

If neuroatypicals were really unable to contribute to society, do you not think that prevalence would be under one in ten thousand, not 375 (or more likely much more)?

Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical
isnt.autistics.org...

Ever heard of drapetomania?

"In 1851, a Louisiana physician and American Medical Association member, Samuel A. Cartwright, published a paper in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal wherein he described a new medical disorder he had recently identified. He called it drapetomania (from drapeto, meaning "to flee," and mania, an obsession), and used it to describe a condition he felt was prevalent in runaway slaves. "

ADD As a Social Invention
By Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D.
(Originally published in Education Week, October 18, 1995)
www.thomasarmstrong.com...

```````````````
Added 'ex' tags for external material


[edit on 13/7/07 by masqua]

"Interestingly, research suggests that children labeled ADD do most poorly in environments that are boring and repetitive, externally controlled, lack immediate feedback, or are presided over by a familiar, maternal-like authority: in other words, the typical conservative "back to basics" classroom (a classroom that currently seems to be undergoing a resurgence in popularity)."

..."Several studies, especially those by Sydney Zentall at Purdue University, suggest, in fact, that just as the amphetamine-like substance Ritalin may help stimulate manv of these kids to an optimal level of arousal, so too can stimulating learning environments also help to focus and calm. I'm reminded here of the canaries that were kept by coal miners deep in the mines. If the level of oxygen fell below a certain level, the canaries would fall over on their perches and die, warning the miners to get out fast. It's possible that children who have been labeled ADD are the canaries of modern-day education; they may be signaling us to transform our nation's classrooms into more dynamic, novel, and exciting learning environments. ADD may, then, be more accurately termed ADDD, or attention-to-ditto-deficit disorder."

ADD As a Social Invention
By Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D.
(Originally published in Education Week, October 18, 1995)
(c) Thomas Armstrong, 1995
www.thomasarmstrong.com...

`````````````````
Added 'ex' tags for external material





[edit on 13/7/07 by masqua]

"Therapists, who uncritically follow the DSM medical model, are likely to place undue emphasis on individual emotional problems as causal factors rather than opening to the larger possibility that the individual is symptomatic due to familial, political or societal system dysfunctions.
Social psychologists call such exclusion of social factors and excessive focus on individual pathology the "fundamental attribution error."
The focus on individual pathology leads to individual based treatment, suggesting that the DSM markets the concept of individually and biologically based social discomfort."

DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power:
Summary of the Critique of the DSM
By: Ofer Zur, Ph.D., and Nola Nordmarken, MFT
www.drzur.com...

````````````````````
Added 'ex' tags

[edit on 13/7/07 by masqua]

"...Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974, when gay activists demonstrated in front of the American Psychiatric Association Convention. The APA's 1974 vote showed 5,854 members supporting and 3,810 opposing the disorder's removal from the manual...Voting on what constitutes mental illness is truly bizarre and, needless to say, is political and unscientific."

..."External political pressure can result, apparently, in the inclusion of a diagnostic category. For example, PTSD was included in the DSM-III as a result of massive lobbying on its behalf by Vietnam vets and their supporters. Prior to that, PTSD sufferers were routinely diagnosed with character disorders."

..."Due to a deadlock in gender politics, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) was placed in the Appendix.

DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power
Summary of the Critique of the DSM
By: Ofer Zur, Ph.D., and Nola Nordmarken, MFT
www.drzur.com...

````````````````````````
Added 'ex' tags and U2Uing

please read Copyrighted material in Posts and Pdcasts

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 13/7/07 by masqua]