Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What laws do we have to protect anyone from biases? The closest thing I can think of is affirmative action. We have non-discrimination laws but I'm sure you are aware bias can not be rooted out and separated. It might could be legislated to death if a person wished to prove a bias in a court of law. With non discrimination laws in place these biases still manage to flourish. Same for the justice system.
We have an entire Federal government architecture that favors women at the expense of men. Affirmative action is only one example. We have set-asides and contract preferences, VAWA, etc. We have countless programs(and tax dollars) that are specifically designed to help only women in the areas of health, science, business, etc. I can think of no federal program that exists which is designed strictly to help only men. Maybe one exists(you're free to cite it) but I'm not aware of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I wasn't aware I had to explicitly say it. To be clear my personal belief is that all things should be fair and equal. In the judicial system arrests, convictions and sentencing should be fair and equal. There should be no discrimination, privilege or bias.
I don't think it would be fair of me to assume what your beliefs are based on what you claim "most people" believe. So yes, I think it's best that you state your position clearly and explicitly. You've done that. Thank you for clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
There are only a few posters with which several of us are arguing. I am not arguing that there is no judicial bia or that it is not wrong. I am arguing that it is NOT the fault of women that the bias exists nor is it the responsibility of women to make a stand and lead a movement to correct it.
Actually it was suggested that if women want equality they should demand the same rate of convictions and same sentencing as men which would according to the linked studies demanding harsher personal sentences for themselves.
Actually no there is rule that a person must fight to their own detriment. Or fight for any particular or every cause.
Women and minorities, handicapped persons and homosexuals have fought for equality, meaning equal legal rights and equal opportunities. This has been achieved. The same laws govern every citizen regardless of gender, race, handicap or sexual orientation. Bias on the other hand is much more difficult to both prove and litigate but the avenue is there to litigate.
Ahhh, but "equality" doesn't simply mean equal right and opportunities. It also means equal obligations and responsibilities, doesn't it? Are you in favor of that as well? That is, everyone at the age of 18 signs up for selective service. No one, regardless of gender, is given any consideration or preferential treatment in any way whatsoever. Resources will only be committed equally, or to gender-neutral programs. We no longer have a need for Title IX, VAWA, etc. Women are going to be viewed and judged as peers of men and expected to meet the same standards in every way, in every instance. I would urge you to think twice about all of the implications of this. Is that really what you want? I don't think you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
What you are skirting is the other parties obligation to demand equal treatment.
Why do you feel it is my responsibility to demand, protest (not sure what you would have me do) or speak out on this judicial bias yet you say nothing of men who are unfairly treated to do the same? Do men not also demand equality in the workplace and elsewhere.
I'm not skirting anything. I understand your point, and it's a fair one. Every group has the obligation to fight for their own common interests, I get that. But here's the difference: Men aren't claiming to be an "oppressed minority"; women are. And if I understand you correctly, you are declaring that everyone should be treated equally. Therefore, when offered preferential treatment by way of a set-aside, a special grant, affirmative action, lower standards on an entrance exam, etc., you, and all women, should stand up and demand to be treated equally, right?
We have an entire Federal government architecture that favors women at the expense of men. Affirmative action is only one example. We have set-asides and contract preferences, VAWA, etc. We have countless programs(and tax dollars) that are specifically designed to help only women in the areas of health, science, business, etc. I can think of no federal program that exists which is designed strictly to help only men. Maybe one exists(you're free to cite it) but I'm not aware of it.
Not only women. Affirmative action and federal and state contract preferences are aimed at minorities; race, gender, veterans. They came about out of bias against these groups and were meant to stimulate the economy. So they are addressing a long standing bias. There have not been federal programs to help men only because there was no bias against men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigmatico
I don't think it would be fair of me to assume what your beliefs are based on what you claim "most people" believe. So yes, I think it's best that you state your position clearly and explicitly. You've done that. Thank you for clarifying.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigmatico
Ahhh, but "equality" doesn't simply mean equal right and opportunities. It also means equal obligations and responsibilities, doesn't it? Are you in favor of that as well? That is, everyone at the age of 18 signs up for selective service. No one, regardless of gender, is given any consideration or preferential treatment in any way whatsoever. Resources will only be committed equally, or to gender-neutral programs. We no longer have a need for Title IX, VAWA, etc. Women are going to be viewed and judged as peers of men and expected to meet the same standards in every way, in every instance. I would urge you to think twice about all of the implications of this. Is that really what you want? I don't think you do.
Until just about a year ago women were NOT ALLOWED to serve in combat duty so I have no problem with them not singing up for draft. Also as already stated the ERA has never been ratified. Upon ratification women would be required to register. So this argument is moot. As far as Title IX, VAWA, etc. I'm not sure how you see that as an obligation or responsibility. Now that women are permitted in combat and when the ERA is ratified I will fully support women registering for the draft.
I'm not sure why its so hard to understand that equality does indeed mean equal rights and opportunities. People are not identical and equality does not imply to be homogeneous.
So when men are equally physically and sexually abused and can become pregnant, nurse and have the same reproductive issues as women then we will have your definition of equality and wont need Title IX or VAWA.
Are men then not also to be viewed and judges as peers of women and expected to meet the same standards in every way and in every instance. If it is to be total equality why is it still a one way street leading to masculinity?
Do you see what you are suggesting is that we all become identical. Tell me why human's cant have the same protections under the law and the same legal and civil opportunities without having the same biological and genetic characteristics? Black men who fought for equal rights were not expected to become white. No one had issue with Black men retaining their roots, culture or identities as African Americans. And given these civil rights there is still bias against them, in the court, in business, in housing, and they are given preferential treatment under government contracts, etc. to offset that. The exact situations you point out with women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigmatico
I don't think you do.I'm not skirting anything. I understand your point, and it's a fair one. Every group has the obligation to fight for their own common interests, I get that. But here's the difference: Men aren't claiming to be an "oppressed minority"; women are. And if I understand you correctly, you are declaring that everyone should be treated equally. Therefore, when offered preferential treatment by way of a set-aside, a special grant, affirmative action, lower standards on an entrance exam, etc., you, and all women, should stand up and demand to be treated equally, right?
Your reaching. I'm not sure where women are claiming to be an oppressed minority, women have not demanded special grants, affirmative action, lower standards, etc.. We are talking about in the courtroom. In the courtroom women are not claiming to be oppressed. The bias granting women lesser sentences comes from cognitive bias within the judicial system from the judges themselves to the jurors. To be clear I do not think there is a need for special privileges for minorities or women or special groups unless there is proven evidence those groups are being willfully disadvantaged. But the argument stands that people do not fight to their detriment. All people will take advantage of something in their favor. Until you apply this human characteristic to every human don't insist just one group stand up and demand to be treated equally, right?
This is the same bias (according to the studies linked) that women are weaker, delicate, incapable of logic, decision making and responsibility for their actions that previously was held against women. Preventing women from higher educations, most jobs, from voting, holding office, owning property, having credit, controlling their own reproduction, etc. The difference now is that bias, the exact same one held by men in the past that is creating bias in the courtroom, is to our advantage.
Not only women. Affirmative action and federal and state contract preferences are aimed at minorities; race, gender, veterans. They came about out of bias against these groups and were meant to stimulate the economy. So they are addressing a long standing bias. There have not been federal programs to help men only because there was no bias against men.
So, are you in favor of eliminating all of these programs aimed only to help women, or in favor of implementing laws to address the bias against men in the judicial system? It's either/or.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Until just about a year ago women were NOT ALLOWED to serve in combat duty so I have no problem with them not singing up for draft. Also as already stated the ERA has never been ratified. Upon ratification women would be required to register. So this argument is moot. As far as Title IX, VAWA, etc. I'm not sure how you see that as an obligation or responsibility. Now that women are permitted in combat and when the ERA is ratified I will fully support women registering for the draft.
I didn't say these were obligations and responsibilities, but they are designed to specifically address the needs of women. Since we're all going to be viewed/treated equally, they won't be needed any more. And it's very easy today on a discussion forum to say you support women being forced to register for conscription, but if/when your 18-year-old, 90-pound daughter was scheduled for front-line combat, I strongly suspect you would think otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I'm not sure why its so hard to understand that equality does indeed mean equal rights and opportunities. People are not identical and equality does not imply to be homogeneous.
So when men are equally physically and sexually abused and can become pregnant, nurse and have the same reproductive issues as women then we will have your definition of equality and wont need Title IX or VAWA.
Are men then not also to be viewed and judges as peers of women and expected to meet the same standards in every way and in every instance. If it is to be total equality why is it still a one way street leading to masculinity?
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that "equality" is more than rights and opportunities. Equality does in fact assume everyone to be identical in a number of ways. You don't get to pick and choose when it's to your benefit, because that would be unequal. Women are going to have the responsibility/obligation of meeting the same standards in order to become police officers, get into the Ivy League, STEM programs, etc. They will be considered equally in marriage law and in custody disputes. No more alimony, SS widow benefits, etc. You couldn't legally stop a man from entering a women's restroom. No accommodations for pregnant women on an airplane, in a parking space, nothing. They'll be no "women only" anything. Again, I think you should think twice about the implications of this, and be very careful what you ask for.
As to the one-way street you mention, that's a very good question. I've often wondered how, in order to be equal, women were so easily convinced they had to be more like men. Women have always been equally valuable in our society, if not moreso. It was the women's movement which basically declared that women are worthless unless they forsake their family role and try to be like men. "Put your kids in daycare and go chase a power career, you silly housewife. Raising good, intelligent, well-adjusted children isn't important". So yes, it would certainly be a two-way street, though I don't see many men clambering to be nursing consultants, midwives, etc. But either way, they would have to meet the same standards. I'm not sure what other standards you're thinking of but yeah, this would be a gender-neutral society.
And by the way, men are raped more often than women in the US. I don't know of any federal program that addresses their specific needs in that regard. Should we have one, or should we eliminate those programs designed to help female rape victims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Do you see what you are suggesting is that we all become identical. Tell me why human's cant have the same protections under the law and the same legal and civil opportunities without having the same biological and genetic characteristics? Black men who fought for equal rights were not expected to become white. No one had issue with Black men retaining their roots, culture or identities as African Americans. And given these civil rights there is still bias against them, in the court, in business, in housing, and they are given preferential treatment under government contracts, etc. to offset that. The exact situations you point out with women.
I'm not suggesting that we're all identical. That would be rather foolish. Explain for me where women do not have equal protection under the law and the same legal and civil opportunities as men. What you're telling me is that you want equality. Fine. So therefore, what you want is a totally gender-blind society. One where women and men are viewed and treated exactly the same. That would be equality, wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Your reaching. I'm not sure where women are claiming to be an oppressed minority, women have not demanded special grants, affirmative action, lower standards, etc.. We are talking about in the courtroom. In the courtroom women are not claiming to be oppressed. The bias granting women lesser sentences comes from cognitive bias within the judicial system from the judges themselves to the jurors. To be clear I do not think there is a need for special privileges for minorities or women or special groups unless there is proven evidence those groups are being willfully disadvantaged. But the argument stands that people do not fight to their detriment. All people will take advantage of something in their favor. Until you apply this human characteristic to every human don't insist just one group stand up and demand to be treated equally, right?
This is the same bias (according to the studies linked) that women are weaker, delicate, incapable of logic, decision making and responsibility for their actions that previously was held against women. Preventing women from higher educations, most jobs, from voting, holding office, owning property, having credit, controlling their own reproduction, etc. The difference now is that bias, the exact same one held by men in the past that is creating bias in the courtroom, is to our advantage.
Are you serious? Is it your suggestion that all of these laws and programs were created for no reason? That women felt they were being treated fairly and equitably but we created all of these laws and programs anyway? Now THAT'S a reach. Again, I don't expect anyone to fight towards their own detriment. Unless maybe they claim "equality" as their goal...Isn't that what you want? Don't you want women to be sentenced as harshly as men are? Don't you want to scoff at the notion that "he made me do it"?
Of course women aren't claiming to be oppressed by the courts; that would be a fool's errand. It's plain even to the most casual observer that the judicial system gives them preferential treatment over their male counterparts every step of the way. So, this cognitive bias of the judges and jurors, where does it come from? It certainly doesn't come strictly from their experience in the court system. It comes from the totality of their entire experience in our society, doesn't it?
And your use of the phrase "controlling their own reproduction" is very telling. Maybe I missed a memo, but are women able to reproduce on their own now? Of course not, so it isn't "their own reproduction". You've exposed your real agenda.
So, are you in favor of eliminating all of these programs aimed only to help women, or in favor of implementing laws to address the bias against men in the judicial system? It's either/or.
I didn't say these were obligations and responsibilities, but they are designed to specifically address the needs of women. Since we're all going to be viewed/treated equally, they won't be needed any more. And it's very easy today on a discussion forum to say you support women being forced to register for conscription, but if/when your 18-year-old, 90-pound daughter was scheduled for front-line combat, I strongly suspect you would think otherwise.I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that "equality" is more than rights and opportunities. Equality does in fact assume everyone to be identical in a number of ways. You don't get to pick and choose when it's to your benefit, because that would be unequal. Women are going to have the responsibility/obligation of meeting the same standards in order to become police officers, get into the Ivy League, STEM programs, etc. They will be considered equally in marriage law and in custody disputes. No more alimony, SS widow benefits, etc. You couldn't legally stop a man from entering a women's restroom. No accommodations for pregnant women on an airplane, in a parking space, nothing. They'll be no "women only" anything. Again, I think you should think twice about the implications of this, and be very careful what you ask for.
As to the one-way street you mention, that's a very good question. I've often wondered how, in order to be equal, women were so easily convinced they had to be more like men. Women have always been equally valuable in our society, if not moreso. It was the women's movement which basically declared that women are worthless unless they forsake their family role and try to be like men. "Put your kids in daycare and go chase a power career, you silly housewife. Raising good, intelligent, well-adjusted children isn't important". So yes, it would certainly be a two-way street, though I don't see many men clambering to be nursing consultants, midwives, etc. But either way, they would have to meet the same standards. I'm not sure what other standards you're thinking of but yeah, this would be a gender-neutral society.
And by the way, men are raped more often than women in the US. I don't know of any federal program that addresses their specific needs in that regard. Should we have one, or should we eliminate those programs designed to help female rape victims?I'm not suggesting that we're all identical. That would be rather foolish. Explain for me where women do not have equal protection under the law and the same legal and civil opportunities as men. What you're telling me is that you want equality. Fine. So therefore, what you want is a totally gender-blind society. One where women and men are viewed and treated exactly the same. That would be equality, wouldn't it? Are you serious? Is it your suggestion that all of these laws and programs were created for no reason? That women felt they were being treated fairly and equitably but we created all of these laws and programs anyway? Now THAT'S a reach. Again, I don't expect anyone to fight towards their own detriment. Unless maybe they claim "equality" as their goal...Isn't that what you want? Don't you want women to be sentenced as harshly as men are? Don't you want to scoff at the notion that "he made me do it"?
Of course women aren't claiming to be oppressed by the courts; that would be a fool's errand. It's plain even to the most casual observer that the judicial system gives them preferential treatment over their male counterparts every step of the way. So, this cognitive bias of the judges and jurors, where does it come from? It certainly doesn't come strictly from their experience in the court system. It comes from the totality of their entire experience in our society, doesn't it?
And your use of the phrase "controlling their own reproduction" is very telling. Maybe I missed a memo, but are women able to reproduce on their own now? Of course not, so it isn't "their own reproduction". You've exposed your real agenda.
So, are you in favor of eliminating all of these programs aimed only to help women, or in favor of implementing laws to address the bias against men in the judicial system? It's either/or.
NoI am not in favor of eliminating all programs. Programs specific to particular groups with particular issues have nothing to do with equality or bias. Are you in favor of eliminating programs to help the handicapped, or the poor, the elderly, small businesses, etc.
Exactlywhat laws are you going to enact that will stop bias?
I didn't say these were obligations and responsibilities, but they are designed to specifically address the needs of women. Since we're all going to be viewed/treated equally, they won't be needed any more. And it's very easy today on a discussion forum to say you support women being forced to register for conscription, but if/when your 18-year-old, 90-pound daughter was scheduled for front-line combat, I strongly suspect you would think otherwise.
Your words: Ahhh, but "equality" doesn'tsimply mean equal right and opportunities. It also means equal obligations and responsibilities,doesn't it.
You still don’t understand or refuse to see that equality means equal rights under the law and equal civil opportunities and rights. It does not mean people do not have different specific issues. The equality comes into play where for example federal or state monies would be available for both men’s specific needs or women’s specific need. If there is an area like prostate cancer research or a clinic for testicular cancer it would be funded. Equality mean if a man were to have breast cancer he wouldn’t be denied help from a woman’s breast cancer treatment center. Equal is different than identical. I would feel the same whether it were my 18 year old son or daughter.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that "equality" is more than rights and opportunities. Equality does in fact assume everyone to be identical in a number of ways. You don't get to pick and choose when it's to your benefit, because that would be unequal. Women are going to have the responsibility/obligation of meeting the same standards in order to become police officers, get into the Ivy League, STEM programs, etc. They will be considered equally in marriage law and in custody disputes. No more alimony, SS widow benefits, etc. You couldn't legally stop a man from entering a women's restroom. No accommodations for pregnant women on an airplane, in a parking space, nothing. They'll be no "women only" anything. Again, I think you should think twice about the implications of this, and be very careful what you ask for.
Again equal does not mean identical. If we were identical we would all be biologically one gender. The genders are different and have different issues and needs that does not mean we cannot both have the same set of laws and the same opportunities. If you cant grasp that then there is no discussion. Why have you not addressed then that equality among the races does not mean African Americans must be white.
Your arguments fail, Alimony is not gender specific, widow benefits is survivors benefits encompassing both genders, men are not pregnant, it they were they would get special accommodations, if a man has a handicap he would get special privileges. I’m am not the one asking or insisting that everyone be identical. I acknowledge that there are difference among people and have no issue with programs geared toward specific groups. I have no issue with “women only†or “men only†as long as both genders have the legal right and opportunity to have clubs, groups, meetings, organizations that are geared to their specific needs or issues.
As to the one-way street you mention, that's a very good question. I've often wondered how, in order to be equal, women were so easily convinced they had to be more like men. Women have always been equally valuable in our society, if not moreso. It was the women's movement which basically declared that women are worthless unless they forsake their family role and try to be like men. "Put your kids in daycare and go chase a power career, you silly housewife. Raising good, intelligent, well-adjusted children isn't important". So yes, it would certainly be a two-way street, though I don't see many men clambering to be nursing consultants, midwives, etc. But either way, they would have to meet the same standards. I'm not sure what other standards you're thinking of but yeah, this would be a gender-neutral society.
Ok I got to stop, the bold, really? Women give up their surname, their children take on the males surname, women didn’t have any claim to their minor children, married women couldn’t own property, women couldn’thave their own credit, couldn’t vote, couldn’t go to the same schools, have the same jobs, the same pay. Prior to that women couldn’t go in public unchaperoned, inheritance went to the males, women couldn’t go to school at all, weren’t taught to read. Should I go on. It was the women’s movement that opened the door for equal legal rights and opportunities and allowed women the ability to live independently.
And BTW, the kids are as much the fathers as mothers. One way street again.
And by the way, men are raped more often than women in the US.
Bull crap.
I don't know of any federal program that addresses their specific needs in that regard.
Are rape crisis centers only for women? Where there is a need it is filled.
Should we have one, or should we eliminate those programs designed to help female rape victims?I'm not suggesting that we're all identical. That would be rather foolish.
That’s exactly what you are suggesting. Explain for me where women do not have equal protection under the law and the same legal and civil opportunities as men.
I never said they did not. I’ve stated repeatedly that is what is meant by equality. Ialso stated it had been achieved.
What you're telling me is that you want equality. Fine. So therefore, what you want is a totally gender-blind society. One where women and men are viewed and treated exactly the same. That would be equality, wouldn't it?
No that is what you keep insisting.
Are you serious?
Areyou? That is what you keep insisting,not me.
Is it your suggestion that all of these laws and programs were created for no reason?That women felt they were being treated fairly and equitably but we created all of these laws and programs anyway? Now THAT'S a reach
Not at all, quite the opposite.
Again, I don't expect anyone to fight towards their own detriment. Unless maybe they claim "equality" as their goal...Isn't that what you want? Don't you want women to be sentenced as harshly as men are? Don't you want to scoff at the notion that "he made me do it"?
No. I want to see all bias gonef rom the legal system
Of course women aren't claiming to be oppressed by the courts; that would be a fool's errand. It's plain even to the most casual observer that the judicial system gives them preferential treatment over their male counterparts every step of the way. So, this cognitive bias of the judges and jurors, where does it come from? It certainly doesn't come strictly from their experience in the court system. It comes from the totality of their entire experience in our society, doesn't it?
]
As I stated it is the EXACT SAME bias they have always had. The EXACT SAME bias that until the women’smovement kept women second class citizens prohibited from benefiting from the same legal rights and opportunities as men.
And your use of the phrase "controlling their own reproduction" is very telling. Maybe I missed a memo, but are women able to reproduce on their own now? Of course not, so it isn't "their own reproduction". You've exposed your real agenda.
I think you've said several times in this thread that there is a bias. You've explained it's roots, accurately I think. I also agree that where men benefit or have benefited it's often been structural, or by design. When women benefit in the courtroom, it's sort of an artifact of the same corrupt system that typically benefits men. I'm with you with all those points.
Where I disagree with you is on your statement that no one acts against their own interests to benefit someone else. Do you really believe that? Do you think the advances any group has made could have been made without people currently benefiting at least standing aside and in many cases supporting and enabling those changes? Fighting for them? Clearly some people in the favored classes fought changes with everything they had, but they sometimes fought people from that same favored class.
Which brings me to this point. If you approve of benefits you receive because some men and women think you're weak, aren't you tacitly supporting their position? And I'm not saying that you should argue with the judge for a harsher sentence, but why not try to eliminate all vestiges of inequality, even if you get some small, mostly potential benefit from them?
2mares,
Where I disagree with you is on your statement that no one acts against their own interests to benefit someone else. Do you really believe that? Do you think the advances any group has made could have been made without people currently benefiting at least standing aside and in many cases supporting and enabling those changes? Fighting for them? Clearly some people in the favored classes fought changes with everything they had, but they sometimes fought people from that same favored class.
I'm actually not saying going against your best interest to benefit someone else but going against your best interest to your own detriment. One can support others causes and have another group benefit without negatively affecting yourself. The granting of civil rights did not take anything away from white men, they still had the same rights and opportunities. Sometimes people sacrifice benefits (money, their life, promotions, etc.) for themselves at a small loss or even a great loss in order to help another. But generally giving up something in your favor is different than being hurt by the consequences of it going in the other direction to your detriment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12
2mares,
Which brings me to this point. If you approve of benefits you receive because some men and women think you're weak, aren't you tacitly supporting their position? And I'm not saying that you should argue with the judge for a harsher sentence, but why not try to eliminate all vestiges of inequality, even if you get some small, mostly potential benefit from them?
It would probably be the moral thing to do if you absolutely know that is why you are getting special favor. But if that morality is going to cause you great detriment, I'd probably not do it and I'd dare say most people would do the same. Most people are not martyrs. If I were broke and had 3 kids to feed that would go hungry or starve and the government offered me FS because obviously although I have equal rights and opportunities I'm to week to support my own family, I'd take the FS. Same if I was offered a position just to fill a quota but if I were ok financially until I found a job I would decline the offered based on quota. I think its a matter of circumstance and necessity.
How is that right. Sins of the father. Each case if about and individual. One man is not responsible for the crimes of others.
Right, and that's where this whole discussion gets complicated. As you've said, equality under the law doesn't mean that laws are interpreted equally. If you and I both robbed convenience stores, we might get different sentences because it happened in different jurisdictions under different circumstances and we have different lawyers and stood in front of different judges. Justice is not a zero-sum game. Making it fair for everyone shouldn't be to the detriment of anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
