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.
BTW: Let's forget the video for a moment. You never did respond to my own effort to explain critical thinking. I would like to hear your responses to my 4 main points. Here they are again, in brief:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
(1) A willingness to discover that some of your beliefs and assumptions need to be changed.
(2) A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about.
(3) When trying to think critically about X, try to identify the assumptions that underlie your beliefs about X, and then adopt an attitude of skepticism toward each of these assumptions.
(4) Try to think of some ways to collect evidence for or against X. If you can't think of any way to collect evidence, then articulate a good argument for why it is okay to believe X, even though there can't be and/or does not have to be any evidence for X.
Do you disagree with any of these?
Do you disagree with any of these?
.
1. A willingness to discover that some of your beliefs and assumptions need to be changed.
Yes I agree. Absolutely. This is a natural byproduct of not only critical thinking but of growth and development emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. I sometimes think of it as don't get too attached to any beliefs because at any moment they can be utterly upended and discarded. Which they have been in my own life a number of times. In ways both large and small. There is a phrase "let go or get dragged" which I am a fan of. If I don't let go of (beliefs, people, jobs, relationships, whatever) then I will get dragged often unpleasantly into the place of growth that is indicated.
I may break this up into posts. Internet connection a bit intermittent this evening.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-31-2018 at 08:05 PM..
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof 2. A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about.
Here we diverge. As has been noted my observation is you are interested in argument and debate. That is not your only interest but it is present. For me the goal need or desire for argument and debate are absent. My focus and intention is discussion and understanding and exploring more deeply topics of interest through conversation with others.
So with this item 2 on your list I make the following distinction and for me it is an important one and an essential one. There is critical thinking which is separate and distinct from what we use it for. If critical thinking is a set of skills that we seek to learn and master, then "what we use it for" is its practical application.
And I did watch the rest of the video, more than once. Some of the examples given for practical application of how a person might use critical thinking that were given in the video were: shopping for groceries; whether to take a new job in a different country.
So in our thread we are discussing what is critical thinking. That for me is a stand alone topic in and of itself. Separate and distict from what we use critical thinking for. So just like we seek to define terms in these threads so we can understand each other and gain clarity and express our views-----I am saying let's identify both of them distinctly and clearly: "critical thinking for me is this".... and..... "I use critical thinking for this"
Back to number 2 in your list. Argument and debate and contention are NOT elements of critical thinking. Rather they arise from and belong to the "practical application" a person chooses, in this case Gaylen and trans for example.
Do you agree and can you see there is a difference and distinction between what something is, and what it may be used for?
So the element you identify "contention" is not an element of critical thinking it is rather an element of your chosen practical application "argument debate". I agree with you that contention is part of argument and debate. I actively decline debate and argument.
(I don't really like making long posts but Gaylen has put time and effort and substantive thought and sincerity into this discussion so his inquiry deserves a a more in depth response)
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-31-2018 at 08:07 PM..
I will do my best but that has not seemed to be good enough in this forum except with Gaylen. You and Arq are stuck in a Creator meme which biases your expectations and interpretations. My views are grounded in an existential view. Everything exists because God exists and everything is some part of God. So nothing can come before God. There are no separate "others" to come before. God IS living and living mandates things like reproduction and change. So nothing is dead because everything is some part of our living God. Our role appears to be to reproduce God's consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Quite apart from the question of 'Did this God create everything or not?' which you avoid, the rest seems the usual Faith-based waffle and plonking faith-claims that - upon examination - have no valid substantiation.
Did you even TRY to read and understand it without your Creator meme and atheist bias???? Clearly NOT. Your antipathy to ANY attempts to support the existence of God (NOT a specific set of beliefs about God that you repeatedly seem unable to abandon) is palpable and close-minded. You are emotionally attached to your atheism in the way that fundamentalist theists are to their dogma. I can see why Arach has been singing that tune. It is blatant. You have no intellectual fluidity or flexibility so my characterization of your mind as concrete is even more evident.
Quote:
So I am a concrete thinker. I don't think that's altogether a bad thing, as it keeps the mental feet on the ground.
Not a bad thing but it keeps you mired in the mud of ignorance with no hope of ever seeing anything not in your current knowledge or immediate view.
Quote:
As I have said before, this is bamboozlement and I have hopefully hacked away a lot of the bamboo.
As I have said before your overestimation of your prowess in debates is legion and your confidence in your understanding is completely unwarranted.
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof 2. A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about.
Here we diverge. As has been noted my observation is you are interested in argument and debate. That is not your only interest but it is present. For me the goal need or desire for argument and debate are absent. My focus and intention is discussion and understanding and exploring more deeply topics of interest through conversation with others.
So with this item 2 on your list I make the following distinction and for me it is an important one and an essential one. There is critical thinking which is separate and distinct from what we use it for. If critical thinking is a set of skills that we seek to learn and master, then "what we use it for" is its practical application.
And I did watch the rest of the video, more than once. Some of the examples given for practical application of how a person might use critical thinking that were given in the video were: shopping for groceries; whether to take a new job in a different country.
So in our thread we are discussing what is critical thinking. That for me is a stand alone topic in and of itself. Separate and distict from what we use critical thinking for.
So just like we seek to define terms in these threads so we can understand each other and gain clarity and express our views-----I am saying let's identify both of them distinctly and clearly: "critical thinking for me is this".... and..... "I use critical thinking for this"
Back to number 2 in your list. Argument and debate and contention are NOT elements of critical thinking. Rather they arise from and belong to the "practical application" a person chooses, in this case Gaylen and trans for example.
Do you agree there is a difference and distinction between what something is, and what it may be used for?
So I do not choose to engage in argument or debate. I choose to engage in discussion and seek clarity in understanding.
Contention is also not part of critical thinking. I agree with you contention is part of argument and debate, which is a chosen practical application.. I actively seek to NOT engage in strife contention discord. Just like I decline debate and argument.
So the element you identify "contention" is not an element of critical thinking it is rather an element of your chosen practical application "argument debate"
(I don't really like making long posts but Gaylen has put time and effort and substantive thought and sincerity into this discussion so his inquiry deserves a a more in depth response)
Gaylen, my friend, your skills are awesome but I think futile. Abandon all hope ye who engage Tzaph on such issues.
DOriginally Posted by Gaylenwoof 2. A willingness - indeed, preferably, a flat-out desire - to study the best argument on BOTH (or ALL sides) of the contentious issue that you are trying to think critically about.
Here we diverge. As has been noted my observation is you are interested in argument and debate. ... My focus and intention is discussion and understanding and exploring more deeply topics of interest through conversation with others.
I think you've misunderstood me. As I see it, #2 has nothing to do with debate; it's about knowledge of alternative views. It is exactly, as you say, "exploring more deeply topics of interest." But you can't explore a topic deeply if you won't even listen to the people who are most passionate and most knowledgeable about the alternatives. Sometimes the people who have the most insight are people who you don't like - or who have motives you don't approve of. But despite their questionable motives, etc., this doesn't mean that their position is not worth hearing.
For example: I've read entire books by people who are convinced that evolution is just BS. Yes, I probably enjoy debate more than you do, and yes a part of my mind is seeking counterarguments, but first and foremost I am simply trying to understand their position. E.g., Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I went into that book with a lot of skepticism about Behe's objectivity as a scientist, but I didn't go into that book thinking "I know he's wrong and I'm going to prove him wrong." No, after reading the book I found myself seriously wondering if his issues with "irreducible complexity" might be a genuine problem. A few months later, after more investigation, I felt comfortable saying that irreducible complexity is not a devastating problem for the theory of evolution. But it would have been virtually impossible to get to that point if I had not set aside my skepticism about Behe long enough to listen carefully to his views. THAT is what criteria #2 is all about. Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking, but you have to also be able to set it aside for some periods of time so that you can actually hear what other people are saying.
I think you've misunderstood me. As I see it, #2 has nothing to do with debate; it's about knowledge of alternative views. It is exactly, as you say, "exploring more deeply topics of interest." But you can't explore a topic deeply if you won't even listen to the people who are most passionate and most knowledgeable about the alternatives. Sometimes the people who have the most insight are people who you don't like - or who have motives you don't approve of. But despite their questionable motives, etc., this doesn't mean that their position is not worth hearing.
For example: I've read entire books by people who are convinced that evolution is just BS. Yes, I probably enjoy debate more than you do, and yes a part of my mind is seeking counterarguments, but first and foremost I am simply trying to understand their position. E.g., Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. I went into that book with a lot of skepticism about Behe's objectivity as a scientist, but I didn't go into that book thinking "I know he's wrong and I'm going to prove him wrong." No, after reading the book I found myself seriously wondering if his issues with "irreducible complexity" might be a genuine problem. A few months later, after more investigation, I felt comfortable saying that irreducible complexity is not a devastating problem for the theory of evolution. But it would have been virtually impossible to get to that point if I had not set aside my skepticism about Behe long enough to listen carefully to his views. THAT is what criteria #2 is all about. Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking, but you have to also be able to set it aside for some periods of time so that you can actually hear what other people are saying.
listening and discussing, to increase understanding, and for clarity
is different from
argument (the word you used) and debate (which you state you do enjoy)
and I fully acknowledge that you do seek to understand, and explore ideas and concepts in great depth. I admire that in you, and I recognize and respect that in you.
you bring up a good point. "seek to convince someone to change their mind" is something done by someone who tries to convert others. it is often called "proselytizing."
pros·e·lyt·ize
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
synonyms: evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit
here is a place where we may diverge and be at cross purposes in our conversation and discussion. If there is a list of "behaviors I do not engage in" then on that list is "trying to convert others." I'm glad you brought this up. It is very very very deeply engrained in me not to try to convert anyone or convince anyone of anything. I trust people to know their own mind and make their own decisions and navigate their own path in determining what works best for them.
It always felt very disrespectful to me whenever someone tried to convert me or convince me of anything. It felt pushy and bossy and patronizing and aggressive. For the same reason, i don't and won't proselytize. I won't even work in sales in any capacity because it feels like i don't want to inflict that behavior on anyone else because I viscerally abhor it myself. "if people want a product they seek out information ask questions and make their decision. " about not just products but ideas and beliefs as well. that just feels inherently more respectful. it recognizes that people are smart, people are capable, people are intelligent, people have the capacity to navigate life and steer the helm of their own ship.
for decades (most of my life) it was one of the reasons i absolutely refused to have anything to do with any religion whatsoever. i even said "i will never be part of any religion unless it does not seek converts, does not proselytize." i didn't think there was such a thing. around age 50 i learned that the religion i am part of has that very policy: no proselytizing, does not seek converts. it actually discourages conversion. that was and is very appealing to me.
so it's against my religion to proselytize or seek converts. that is why you won't see me discussing theology with anyone outside my own religious tradition. human behavior yes. ideology yes. beliefs yes. behaviors yes. but never which religion is better or right. everyone has access to God. to my thinking it is arrogance to claim any teacher or any religion is the gatekeeper to God. that smacks of supremacy which leads to arrogance which fosters hate.
i don't know about skepticism. I'm more likely to say "i don't get this" or "how do you reconcile this" or "how do you make sense of this" or "how do you reconcile this" than to use the word skeptical. it just doesn't fit for me. it's not in my sphere. if something seems amiss then yes i seek to explore it, but not within the framework of "this is in error and this is why." for me it is seeking to identify "why does this bother me." if i have a strong aversion to an idea or a person, then for me it is going within and seeing for myself what is the emotional charge or what is out of kilter for me. that is different from looking outward and pointing at the thing and saying "this is wrong because"
skeptical feels so foreign i had to look up the definition:
skep·ti·cal
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
ah it feels foreign because it is related to convincing others or being convinced. see above paragraphs.
however the part about doubts or reservations does ring true for me. but i would use those words instead of skeptical. different tone.
do i agree that "Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking," No i do not agree, the word skepticism does not resonate. I'd use a different word or set of words. let's look at the definition for it:
skep·ti·cism
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
oh ok. no wonder i don't like it. "I doubt if you are telling the truth" is not a part of critical thinking. walking around in a mindset of "I doubt if anyone is telling the truth about anything" definitely not critical thinking. why? for starters it sounds cynical and suspicious and hard and bitter. also it is redolent of and takes back to "truth falsehood" "liar liar" framework, overly simplistic, not part of critical thinking.
exploring topics deeply to have a more broad and deep understanding, gather a lot of information yes i'll go with that. can you hear and feel the difference between "they're lying" and "i want to gather more information for myself so I can make an informed decision" inward focus, my learning my growth. Not outward focus convincing someone else why they are wrong (=argument, debate, contentious)
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-31-2018 at 09:49 PM..
"abandon all hope" of what?
what is it you are saying is futile? clarify for us what you mean
fu·tile
incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.
Abandon any hope that you will actually understand a point of view you fundamentally disagree with. This is NOT a problem of your intellect or abilities but one of emotional openness to ideas that are in stark opposition to what you believe. I try to highlight what I mean in response to your post below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i don't know about skepticism. I'm more likely to say "i don't get this" or "how do you reconcile this" or "how do you make sense of this" or "how do you reconcile this" than to use the word skeptical. it just doesn't fit for me. it's not in my sphere. if something seems amiss then yes i seek to explore it, but not within the framework of "this is in error and this is why." for me it is seeking to identify "why does this bother me." if i have a strong aversion to an idea or a person, then for me it is going within and seeing for myself what is the emotional charge or what is out of kilter for me. that is different from looking outward and pointing at the thing and saying "this is wrong because"
skeptical feels so foreign i had to look up the definition:
do i agree that "Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking," No i do not agree, the word skepticism does not resonate. I'd use a different word or set of words. let's look at the definition for it:
skep·ti·cism
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
oh ok. no wonder i don't like it. "I doubt if you are telling the truth" is not a part of critical thinking. walking around in a mindset of "I doubt if anyone is telling the truth about anything" definitely not critical thinking. why? for starters it sounds cynical and suspicious and hard and bitter. also it is redolent of and takes back to "truth falsehood" "liar liar" framework, overly simplistic, not part of critical thinking.
First your expressed concerns about skepticism (underlined in the bold above) reveals that my concerns about the emotional importance of your reticence to expose your mind to opposing viewpoints seems valid. But the real problem with your responses to presentations of viewpoints you do not agree with or understand is to personalize your understanding of them and attach unwarranted emotional baggage to them. In the case of skepticism, the definition refers to doubt as to the truth of something. But you twist it to doubt about telling the truth about something. They are NOT the same thing. The first one is concerned with the factual basis of something. Your version is concerned about the honesty of the one presenting the fact. Do you even see what you did there? I suspect you do not and that is why I see efforts to enlighten your understanding as futile.
Did you even TRY to read and understand it without your Creator meme and atheist bias???? Clearly NOT. Your antipathy to ANY attempts to support the existence of God (NOT a specific set of beliefs about God that you repeatedly seem unable to abandon) is palpable and close-minded. You are emotionally attached to your atheism in the way that fundamentalist theists are to their dogma. I can see why Arach has been singing that tune. It is blatant. You have no intellectual fluidity or flexibility so my characterization of your mind as concrete is even more evident. Not a bad thing but it keeps you mired in the mud of ignorance with no hope of ever seeing anything not in your current knowledge or immediate view. As I have said before your overestimation of your prowess in debates is legion and your confidence in your understanding is completely unwarranted.
Wrong on all three counts and showing both your inability to think clearly or even honestly or even take a second to step back and see how you look to others.
What sense does the god -argument make without the creator meme? You said yourself (in response to Tzaph's point that otherwise, you are just taking the stuff that humans make up and calling it God) that it something apart from humans. As soon as you have a cosmic mind that's independent of that, 'atheist mode' (your deprecating term for skepticism of such a claim) applies, and creator thinking (without which evolution of consciousness along with life is the better explanation) really being the usual meaning of God. If it's not what you mean, the right thing to do is say so, not use it to try to wave away the opposition without addressing any of the problems.
Your latching onto Arach's obsessive hatred of Liberal atheism as a handy stick to bash anyone with who is not 'flexible' (read "Gullible") enough to accept your claims without question, says more to the trashing of your already minimal credibility than mine.
Finally your backhanded compliment and reluctant recognition that you have been beaten yet again, despite your persistent denial, is most appreciated.
If any here have any remaining doubts that your theory is Faith -based, crackpot and without any real coherence, or that you have been made by Faith (because other than that you are a wise and caring person, I know) into a irrational, deluded and intellectually dishonest bit of work, you just keep right on trying to bash me in this way and any remaining doubts anyone may have will be laid to rest.
(Tzaph) For me the goal need or desire for argument and debate are absent. My focus and intention is discussion and understanding and exploring more deeply topics of interest through conversation with others.
One needs to translate this a bit. It is really saying, if you look at it, that you are here to present and push and proselytize, in actual fact, your views, beliefs and opinions without being called on to defend them in argument. You present this as something 'we enjoy' when in fact it is a necessary part of examining claims to see whether they stand up. Right from my first arrival here, I became aware of the "Not arguing - just telling" ploy. Which was no more than a demand to be allowed to preach without question.
This can be traced along the line of 'respect for my beliefs' to 'shut up and go away atheists' to -of course Blasphemy law.
Anyone who posts claims here can expect to be called on it and none can claim immunity on the grounds of Respect, Unquestionable Dogma or not really wanting to argue about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
listening and discussing, to increase understanding, and for clarity
is different from
argument (the word you used) and debate (which you state you do enjoy)
and I fully acknowledge that you do seek to understand, and explore ideas and concepts in great depth. I admire that in you, and I recognize and respect that in you.
you bring up a good point. "seek to convince someone to change their mind" is something done by someone who tries to convert others. it is often called "proselytizing."
pros·e·lyt·ize
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
synonyms: evangelize, convert, save, redeem, win over, preach (to), recruit
here is a place where we may diverge and be at cross purposes in our conversation and discussion. If there is a list of "behaviors I do not engage in" then on that list is "trying to convert others." I'm glad you brought this up. It is very very very deeply engrained in me not to try to convert anyone or convince anyone of anything. I trust people to know their own mind and make their own decisions and navigate their own path in determining what works best for them.
It always felt very disrespectful to me whenever someone tried to convert me or convince me of anything. It felt pushy and bossy and patronizing and aggressive. For the same reason, i don't and won't proselytize. I won't even work in sales in any capacity because it feels like i don't want to inflict that behavior on anyone else because I viscerally abhor it myself. "if people want a product they seek out information ask questions and make their decision. " about not just products but ideas and beliefs as well. that just feels inherently more respectful. it recognizes that people are smart, people are capable, people are intelligent, people have the capacity to navigate life and steer the helm of their own ship.
for decades (most of my life) it was one of the reasons i absolutely refused to have anything to do with any religion whatsoever. i even said "i will never be part of any religion unless it does not seek converts, does not proselytize." i didn't think there was such a thing. around age 50 i learned that the religion i am part of has that very policy: no proselytizing, does not seek converts. it actually discourages conversion. that was and is very appealing to me.
so it's against my religion to proselytize or seek converts. that is why you won't see me discussing theology with anyone outside my own religious tradition. human behavior yes. ideology yes. beliefs yes. behaviors yes. but never which religion is better or right. everyone has access to God. to my thinking it is arrogance to claim any teacher or any religion is the gatekeeper to God. that smacks of supremacy which leads to arrogance which fosters hate.
i don't know about skepticism. I'm more likely to say "i don't get this" or "how do you reconcile this" or "how do you make sense of this" or "how do you reconcile this" than to use the word skeptical. it just doesn't fit for me. it's not in my sphere. if something seems amiss then yes i seek to explore it, but not within the framework of "this is in error and this is why." for me it is seeking to identify "why does this bother me." if i have a strong aversion to an idea or a person, then for me it is going within and seeing for myself what is the emotional charge or what is out of kilter for me. that is different from looking outward and pointing at the thing and saying "this is wrong because"
skeptical feels so foreign i had to look up the definition:
skep·ti·cal
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
ah it feels foreign because it is related to convincing others or being convinced. see above paragraphs.
however the part about doubts or reservations does ring true for me. but i would use those words instead of skeptical. different tone.
do i agree that "Skepticism is an essential aspect of critical thinking," No i do not agree, the word skepticism does not resonate. I'd use a different word or set of words. let's look at the definition for it:
skep·ti·cism
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
oh ok. no wonder i don't like it. "I doubt if you are telling the truth" is not a part of critical thinking. walking around in a mindset of "I doubt if anyone is telling the truth about anything" definitely not critical thinking. why? for starters it sounds cynical and suspicious and hard and bitter. also it is redolent of and takes back to "truth falsehood" "liar liar" framework, overly simplistic, not part of critical thinking.
exploring topics deeply to have a more broad and deep understanding, gather a lot of information yes i'll go with that. can you hear and feel the difference between "they're lying" and "i want to gather more information for myself so I can make an informed decision" inward focus, my learning my growth. Not outward focus convincing someone else why they are wrong (=argument, debate, contentious)
There is a bit of a problem here, Tzaph. It looks a bit like putting the worst possible inference on what someone says (or almost says) in order to make it look bad. Take this:
"skep·ti·cism
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
oh ok. no wonder i don't like it. "I doubt if you are telling the truth" is not a part of critical thinking."
To take skepticism" ''I need to see sound evidence that your claim is correct (before I accept it)' is presented as some accusation of a person lying. When what skepticism is about is misrepresented as much as that, no wonder you don't like it.
That said:
"i don't know about skepticism. I'm more likely to say "i don't get this" or "how do you reconcile this" or "how do you make sense of this" or "how do you reconcile this" than to use the word skeptical. it just doesn't fit for me"
That isn't the right way about it either. It is more the Engineers' solution -to find a way of making it work rather than getting at the truth of a matter with evidence.
I won't even go into the difference between problematical proselytization (Peddling a Faith -belief without any valid reason to believe it) and the setting out of a stall in the market -place of ideas, but there does seem to be a problem with taking rationality, respect, skepticism and all the rest and recasting to it to fit a different and rather disreputable view of it that you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Abandon any hope that you will actually understand a point of view you fundamentally disagree with. This is NOT a problem of your intellect or abilities but one of emotional openness to ideas that are in stark opposition to what you believe. I try to highlight what I mean in response to your post below.
First your expressed concerns about skepticism (underlined in the bold above) reveals that my concerns about the emotional importance of your reticence to expose your mind to opposing viewpoints seems valid. But the real problem with your responses to presentations of viewpoints you do not agree with or understand is to personalize your understanding of them and attach unwarranted emotional baggage to them. In the case of skepticism, the definition refers to doubt as to the truth of something. But you twist it to doubt about telling the truth about something. They are NOT the same thing. The first one is concerned with the factual basis of something. Your version is concerned about the honesty of the one presenting the fact. Do you even see what you did there? I suspect you do not and that is why I see efforts to enlighten your understanding as futile.
There we are We both saw it clear. We both picked out the pivotal phrase that showed the problem.
There's nothing wrong with your head nor mine. But you have a faith -based belief, I don't. That's what's doing for you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-01-2018 at 02:09 AM..
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.
