Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 64
  1. #26
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I guess if you restrict the definitions of "experience" and "training" to the narrow meanings you've responded with...
    My point is that drug efficacy beyond proper dosing is not something one learns how to "improve".

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    , and limit medical trials to drugs only
    I responded to your examples. Broaden the scope however you please that involves the ability of the participant's experience and training to deliberately affect the results.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    And, much like audio, many drug and medical trials rely heavily on subjectivity to evaluate results. (ie, degree of pain relief), so yeah, I do believe there is room for "learned" results as well.
    Fair enough. While there are always some false positives under placebo, such evaluations are not used to suggest that the participants are not experiencing that which they report. They are used to gauge efficacy especially when many tests employ objective measurements. Audio DBTs simply report the null result.

    rw

  2. #27
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    My point is that drug efficacy beyond proper dosing is not something one learns how to "improve".
    I'd agree with that. My apologies for the confusion, but you'll have to admit this is a much different and more accurate statement than the broad "participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials."

    Just to play devil's advocate, to relate this to audio, it's not "drug efficacy" itself that we learn to improve, but we can improve our ability to recognize therapeutic effects (i.e. ask your wife about examples of studies, or perhaps patients she knows that claimed no effect from therapy, only to notice symptoms returned when dosage stopped). In audio, it's not the actual physical properties of the sound we improve, it's our ability to recognize it...not quite apples to apples, but not that different either. In both cases our developed senses are responsible for improved results.

    I responded to your examples. Broaden the scope however you please that involves the ability of the participant's experience and training to deliberately affect the results.
    I didn't broaden the scope, you narrowed it after I provided valid examples where subject experience and training can effect results in medical trials. If experience and learned ability to use senses (ie, hearing) can be included on the one hand, then the experience with or ability to use a medical apparatus, or ability to notice therapeutic results (because of better trained senses) must be fair game as well.

  3. #28
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    ... but you'll have to admit this is a much different and more accurate statement than the broad "participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials."
    You didn't know what I was thinking?

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    ...but we can improve our ability to recognize therapeutic effects (i.e. ask your wife about examples of studies, or perhaps patients she knows that claimed no effect from therapy, only to notice symptoms returned when dosage stopped).
    I'm confused by this example. They begin with symptoms before the trials, then later under medication, report the symptoms are still there and finally - the symptoms "returned"? How did they return if they never left?

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    ...then the experience with or ability to use a medical apparatus, or ability to notice therapeutic results (because of better trained senses) must be fair game as well.
    The difference is in degrees. My presumption is that the training how to properly use a medical apparatus takes - what minutes? hours? a day? Do many medical trials require complex procedures that skew the results? Training your "mental memory" as Siggy Linkwitz calls it for audio, on the other hand, can take years. Trained listeners spend far more time refining their skills then patients figuring out how take a medication or use an apparatus. I am aware of patient compliance issues where some claim they took medication - when in fact they never did. But that's a different topic...

    rw

  4. #29
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm confused by this example. They begin with symptoms before the trials, then later under medication, report the symptoms are still there and finally - the symptoms "returned"? How did they return if they never left?
    Me too, typed it in a hurry...Forget trials for a second. I was thinking more about the purpose behind the trials - some real life. Audio DBT's test for some difference or no difference. Medical trials can be similar - patients can often report (I've read it more with anti-depressants and pain-killers) no benefits from the drug...but when they stop the drug they realize that their symptoms were alleviate a bit by the drug after all. Just not completely and they didn't realize by what minor amount until they went cold turkey again. It's not unlike the audio world where we spend great efforts to get subtle audio improvements that to the untrained novice ear might go unnoticed at first. Doesn't mean there wasn't some benefit or improvement. Only that we weren't keen enough to notice.

    The difference is in degrees. My presumption is that the training how to properly use a medical apparatus takes - what minutes? hours? a day? Do many medical trials require complex procedures that skew the results?
    Training your "mental memory" as Siggy Linkwitz calls it for audio, on the other hand, can take years. Trained listeners spend far more time refining their skills then patients figuring out how take a medication or use an apparatus. I am aware of patient compliance issues where some claim they took medication - when in fact they never did. But that's a different topic...
    Fair points too...all this to say DBT's aren't the end all, be all in any discipline.

  5. #30
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Me too, typed it in a hurry...Forget trials for a second. I was thinking more about the purpose behind the trials - some real life. Audio DBT's test for some difference or no difference. Medical trials can be similar - patients can often report (I've read it more with anti-depressants and pain-killers) no benefits from the drug...but when they stop the drug they realize that their symptoms were alleviate a bit by the drug after all. Just not completely and they didn't realize by what minor amount until they went cold turkey again. It's not unlike the audio world where we spend great efforts to get subtle audio improvements that to the untrained novice ear might go unnoticed at first. Doesn't mean there wasn't some benefit or improvement. Only that we weren't keen enough to notice..
    Kind of like having a well calibrated sub? You don't notice when it comes on, but you do when it's turned off.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  6. #31
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    They rely very, very heavily on DBT's in their evaluations. But, to mention them for audio applications, particularly here, here is an anathema
    Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.

  7. #32
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That is not true. Like AA, such discussions were encouraged - but in the Audio Lab.

    rw
    Yes it was moved to a separate section but those guys left because it was banned in the other forums - namely the cable forum. Either way this forum lost a large number of continual posters and a lot of back and forth discussion - I can go several days here without anyone posting anything in the amp or source forum.

    Although it also served to get rid of the "rain on my parade" kind of things those guys pulled. If Person A has read and understood the pro DBT stance and chooses to buy his pricey cable it is not necessary to have some putz come in and tell him yet again the same arguments in a snide way. All those years and the cable gurus argued and read all those mrtycrft posts and I bet ZERO ever changed their minds.

  8. #33
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    And, your point is?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.
    Nothing is 100%. You knew that to begin with, didn't you?

    Odds are that some small percentage of people may going to have an adverse reaction to some drug. A small percentage of people react to peanuts, shellfish and everything else.

    The difference is that a great many people do benefit from the positive resuts of the products tested. Assuming the same testing is done, can the same be said for cables?

  9. #34
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The main point about a DBT is justifiably to get rid of sight bias and volume level bias. I think most people would agree that you don't want to be tricked into believing something is better because it looks better or is heavier or comes from a name brand you like more than another name brand. And you don't want to be tricked by the munson effect into believing that the louder unit is better. That does not really require a DBT though. Hi-Fi Choice gets rid of both of those biases and does not introduce stress test environments. It serves the goal of eliminating volume and sight bias for this task. And they have interesting results - often with industry people in the listening sessions.

    And the DBT traditional that people like like to use low trials 10 or 16 and draw early conclusions to support, presumably, what they want it to support. A score of 9/10 is needed to be deemed selecting A or B better than chance to a statistical significance that meets the .05 level. They are quick to point out that if you get less than 9/10 then you merely guessed and that you can't distinguish A from B.

    What they don't tell you, because they're engineers not psychologists, is that high trials are ALWAYS required for this kind of testing. They modeled their tests on medical trials not psychological trials and this fundamental error is either due to laziness or plain ignorance. A score of 6/10 ten times with one miss for a total score of 59/100 meets significance to the .05 level as well but reduces both type I and type II errors.

    Logic - if you have high numbers of trials you can be more sure that your results paint a clearer picture and that you gave the listener every opportunity. 59/100 means you differentiated difference every bit as capably as the guy who scored 9/10. But wait the lazy ignorant group of testers would laugh you out of the room with a 6/10 score.

    That is the thing that bothers me most of all. It's one thing to disagree about the value or "validity" of the DBT but at least pitch your tent on good high trial DBT's with one listener. Even the oakland university site that always gets posted is hugely faulty. They take ten people and ADD their scores together. So if I go 9/10 and you got 1/10 then the score is 10/20 and they think they proved that no one heard a difference. You don't add people's scores together??

  10. #35
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Yes & No

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.
    Vioxx almost killed my mother, in her eighties, when it caused an extreme blood preasure spike.

    On the other hand, I've been taking Lipitor for 7-8 years with no sign of adverse effects.
    Last edited by Feanor; 04-23-2009 at 05:36 AM.

  11. #36
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.
    Horse poop...much like the snake-oil in the alternative medicine industry (not all is snake-oil but there's a lot out there), a lot of patients will swear by drug x, or the degree to which it works. There's is ample subjective interpretation of therapeutic benefits of drugs. Designers of brand name drugs prey on this subjectivity to keep people from buying chemically identical generics with proven equal efficacy.

    Yes, at the biochemical level the drug either reacts or doesn't, but interpreation of the results vary tremendously.

  12. #37
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    Holy KerSmolies Batman....

    Krikey, there was a war, a purge and an exodus and I missed it? Man oh man I've got to pay more attention. There is a delicate balance all moderators and sites have to walk between permitting free expression and allowing the inmates to take over the asylum. I've left several sites because the "laissais faire" attitude of the mods allowed the children to run rampant in an almost "Lord of the Flies" manner. The internet in some ways lures, promotes and enables bullies because there are no consequences other than banning and that's often ineffectual.

    While I miss some of the old guard I firmly believe that sites wax and wane like all things and AA still gets it's fair share of hits. I can accept any opinion as long as it's an "informed" opinion.

    Da Worfster

  13. #38
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by bubbagump
    They livened up the forum. CE with his Legacy Foci (one in one room, the other in another) and Mtrycraft's line of reason vs the audiophile insane clown posse?
    I don't quite remember CE but when I first joined Audioreview, I spent close to 2 years sparring with Mtrycraft along with the posse. It did seem amazing that he based all of his stance on white papers and listening to what in todays world of Audio would be a Transistor Radio tuned into AM.

    I took a good beating from time to time but the Cable forum was kinda fun back then. I did make several friends here from that time before I switched to posting in the music forum.

    I am now using Synergistic Research cables and would love for him to hear the difference between them and my old Tara Labs wires.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That is not true. Like AA, such discussions were encouraged - but in the Audio Lab.

    rw
    Oh yeah, go and segregate the scientific discussions to a ghetto. The place to have many of them is on the forums ask questions about what makes a difference to the sound--and we have no good evidence that changing interconnects makes an audible difference, except for phono cables (some phono cartridges are sensitive to capacitance), or speaker cables in high fidelity configurations (not too long, not too small a gauge).

    I refused to participate in discussions in The Audio Lab ghetto (I'm not the only, and John Escallier told me the same thing), and since the policy was not to engage in audibility discussions in other forums, my participation at Audio Review diminished considerably. I see little reason to increase it now.

    Mtrycrafts, as you have noted, is very active over at Audioholics, where they appreciate his knowledge.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  15. #40
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    Oh yeah, go and segregate the scientific discussions to a ghetto.
    You certainly spend a lot of time in the "ghetto" over at AA. About fifty posts in the past couple of days. Hmmm. Apparently there's a difference to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    ... where they appreciate his knowledge.
    If not his utter lack of experience. He is, however, quick to the draw with dated bibliographies of limited scope! Just for grins, do a search over there on any number of the highest performance components. Zero results.

    rw

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    You certainly spend a lot of time in the "ghetto" over at AA. About fifty posts in the past couple of days. Hmmm. Apparently there's a difference to you.


    If not his utter lack of experience. He is, however, quick to the draw with dated bibliographies of limited scope! Just for grins, do a search over there on any number of the highest performance components. Zero results.

    rw
    I have posted in several forums at AA recently. Do your research. The only audio ghetto at AA I know of is Cable Asylum. One can discuss audibility on their other audio forums.

    What are "the highest performance components"? The ones approved by your beloved TAS, or Stereophile, UHF, and so on?
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  17. #42
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    The only audio ghetto at AA I know of is Cable Asylum. One can discuss audibility on their other audio forums.
    My mistake. I thought you were referring to The Audio Lab here which is the equivalent of Prop Head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    What are "the highest performance components"? The ones approved by your beloved TAS, or Stereophile, UHF, and so on?
    Heavens, no! It is Mtry's experience-free world where one merely quotes what they've read. My approach is very different using direct exposure to a wide range of gear over the past 35 years to guide me. My four systems (five if you count the iPhone/Shure earbud portable) represent a diverse range between mid-fi and high end.

    rw

  18. #43
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Horse poop...much like the snake-oil in the alternative medicine industry (not all is snake-oil but there's a lot out there), a lot of patients will swear by drug x, or the degree to which it works. There's is ample subjective interpretation of therapeutic benefits of drugs. Designers of brand name drugs prey on this subjectivity to keep people from buying chemically identical generics with proven equal efficacy.

    Yes, at the biochemical level the drug either reacts or doesn't, but interpreation of the results vary tremendously.
    Point well taken - I suppose what i was referring to were the drugs that work 100% of the time or very nearly so - you know the knock out solutions before you have surgery. Drugs like morphine.

    But mixing medicine for profit and science together yields a result in favour of profit. It's no longer real science - it is "let's make a product and use science to back up what we want to profit on." And even if that smacks as conspiracy theory stuff - it still IS a conflict of interest when the drug seller is also doing the science. When in doubt let's choose the profit. Get big and squash anything that wasn't conducted in a DBT.

    They sell pills for things that no pill is necessary for. High Cholesterol - yup they want everyone on a lower cholesterol drug - once you take it you need to stay on it for LIFE and numerous studies outside the U.S. have questioned the validity that high cholesterol in itself is a problem at all. Lipitor has liver killing side effects - so you trade a possible heart attack in for live failure. When if you want to lower cholesterol you can do it through diet and exercise. And if you don't have a good diet and exercise Lipitor isn't going to save you anyway.

    So here we have people believing without evidence that High Cholesterol will kill you when it won't and a drug to save you from something that won't kill you which itself may give you serious long term health problems in which you will need piles more drugs to combat - all the while they profited on the liver damaging lipitor. But hey they made their money and owning a Benz is more important than your life. If you want to know where the sociopaths live and work - the drug industry is a good place to start.

    http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
    http://www.naturalnews.com/022960.html

    Not that these will matter since most people seem to only view science from their own countries.

  19. #44
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Point well taken - I suppose what i was referring to were the drugs that work 100% of the time or very nearly so - you know the knock out solutions before you have surgery. Drugs like morphine.

    But mixing medicine for profit and science together yields a result in favour of profit. It's no longer real science - it is "let's make a product and use science to back up what we want to profit on." And even if that smacks as conspiracy theory stuff - it still IS a conflict of interest when the drug seller is also doing the science.
    No argument from me. If you were to talk to some of the r&d people in any of the big drug companies you wouldn't meet many unprincipled, for-profit-at-all-costs scientists. But supervising them at some point is a guy who did his undergrad in biochem before doing an MBA and he knows enough to be dangerous and trigger his company's performance-based bonus clauses. I do believe for the most part things are done right, but when your competitor is 2 years ahead of you on the next prozac or viagra corners get cut.
    Part of the problem too is we know so little about the human body. A lot of these side-effects, like the bad liver take years of treatment, occur in only a segment of subjects, the test subjects don't notice the side-effect and it's just not tested for because nobody ever predicted it. No malicious intent, but devastating consequences all the same.
    But yeah, when there's evidence, it's reported and a company chooses to ignore it so the product remain on schedule...bad.

  20. #45
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    John Lecarre worked in the drug industry - the movie The Constant Gardner is not far from the truth - most normal folks can't imagine people would put profits ahead of people to the degree they do but history provides examples - so many in fact - where companies making profit should NOT be anywhere near a science lab that involves people's lives. Ford - yeah they chose to battle lawsuits because they figure it would be cheaper than a recall - and the punishment over the Pinto - a forced recall and a fine? The board of directors killed more people than all the serial killers in the States combined in the history of the country - yet a serial killer gets the death penalty and Lee Iacocca gets a golden parachute and is allowed to live out a life of wealth.

    Ford before that supplied money to the Nazi's during WWII to help speed up the holocaust. And what do you know the German Ford Plants were never hit in any attack during the war. Now that's impressive accuracy - not even Bush's smart bombs were that smart. And we won't mention their Mustang death traps of the 60's.

    And audio - well it's not deadly but big corporations are money first - and is it the science leading the progress of technology or following the marketing and profit program. I enjoy reading the Harman papers but the product is well worse than some guys seemingly building kits in their basement - so I wonder.

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    My mistake. I thought you were referring to The Audio Lab here which is the equivalent of Prop Head.


    Heavens, no! It is Mtry's experience-free world where one merely quotes what they've read. My approach is very different using direct exposure to a wide range of gear over the past 35 years to guide me. My four systems (five if you count the iPhone/Shure earbud portable) represent a diverse range between mid-fi and high end.

    rw
    The reason Audio Lab was a ghetto is that technical discussions, especially audibility discussions, were discouraged on the other forums here. The place to discuss technical issues is where relevant questions are most likely to come up, which is on the other forums. Otherwise, many questions cannot be properly answered.

    Prop Head is not a ghetto as one can deal with technical and audibility discussions on other forums at AA, but audibility discussions are prohibited only on Cable Asylum.

    You don't know mtrycrafts at all.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  22. #47
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    You don't know mtrycrafts at all.
    Sure I do. He was the self professed resident ditch digger.

    rw

  23. #48
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Sure I do. He was the self professed resident ditch digger.

    rw
    He wouldn't believe he dug a ditch unless he was standing in it. Even then he would be skeptical. I too remember mtrycrafts. He has achieved some measure of Guruism at Audiholics.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  24. #49
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    aaaaaaaaaaahhh, the CHIHUAHUAS !

    mtry (i called him empty) and the more reasonable EYESPY. there were a few of these disciples of mtry who gathered at the entrance to to forum and nipped at the heels and ankles of anybody who said wire sounds different or DBT (i called them BTs4Ds-blind tests for dummies) was inappropriate.

    oh, it was entertaining but posters that came for enlightenment were driven away by the arfing puppies. arf, arf, arf!, and i MEAN it. thats why i continued the resistance so neophytes could pose reasonable questions and expect reasonable answers.

    i could go to audioholics and engage the fray again but thats not what i have in mind to do. i enjoy sharing the experience and knowledge and also LEARNING from other's experience and knowledge.

    yes, i think this forum is greatly enhanced by the new rules imposed by the moderators who changed it all. thankew vurry much!
    ...regards...tr

  25. #50
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
    He wouldn't believe he dug a ditch unless he was standing in it. Even then he would be skeptical. I too remember mtrycrafts. He has achieved some measure of Guruism at Audiholics.
    I can assure both of you that mtry is not a ditch digger.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •