Sign in to follow this  
Sepiatone

Islamaphobes

56 posts in this topic

ISLAMOPHOBIA

 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Rationally speaking out against a principle or idea one is opposed to is not a phobia.

 

- One may support democracy therefore oppose the theocratic rule which Sharia demands and Muslim countries end up with.

 

- One may believe women are equal to men and therefore oppose the idea that women are second class citizens which is at the core of Islam.

 

- One may believe in freedom of and from religion, and therefore oppose any system where apostasy earns a death sentence.

 

Thus one may oppose Islamist ideology, logically and without any 'phobia' at all.

 

Islamophobia is a meaningless word and often a slanderous and misleading accusation used in forms of communication reminiscent of Goebellian propaganda. One may calmly and rationally oppose any and all belief systems which by doctrine declare open war on democracy, gender equality, gays, apostates and unbelievers. That is no phobia. That is rational opposition to an offensive idea utilizing reason, logic and rhetoric.

My coining the term  ISLAMAPHOBE is  based on the irrational fear  that all who embrace Islam in this country are members of some terrorist "sleeper cell" and just waiting for the opportunity for a takeover.

 

Comparable to homophobe,  which too, is an irrational fear.  Which, as you may recall, came to the forefront by those nail biters who feared allowing same sex marriages would bring about an epidimic of homosexuality and men leaving their wives and families to move in with other men, and even start wanting to marry goats, pigs and other animals.

 

And of course, that's yet to happen.

 

And while you do make a somewhat valid point, it all only clearly shows you've completely missed MINE, which was that it's OK to HATE something or someone, but preferrable if that hatred is based on something other  than misconception and irrational fear.  to whit:

 

Black people do NOT want to move next door to you in order to marry your daughter or steal your possesions....

 

Gay people have NO desire to molest your children, nor "convert" heterosexuals to their "lifestyle", or even "recruit" your children to homosexuality.

 

And that HATING something or someone DOESN'T give anyone the right to do them harm, or or deny them or it the right to exist.  You only do THAT at the risk of becoming that which you hate and fear.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They either foster the same irrational hate, or perhaps they're Jewish?

 

Who can tell?

 

What's amusing is that they seem to believe Islam is the ONLY religion in which it's followers perform unspeakable acts against "non-believers".

 

But remember.....

 

HITLER and the NAZIS were NOT Muslim.

 

Neither was THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

 

Nor is the KU KLUX KLAN.

 

Or the ROMANS.

 

And to believe that ALL Muslims are violent propagators of attacks on Western culture is on the same level as believing that....

 

All IRISH are drunkards.....

 

All Africa-Americans are theives and "gang-bangers"...and thrive on CARP....

 

All MEXICANS are basically lazy....

 

All ITALIANS are greasy women chasing WINOS....

 

And the list goes on.

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheer amount of these threads are withering ... most retrograde to any sense of restraint.

 

Lafitte, as I am in England I will presume to correct your English:  I believe the sentence should be:

 

"The sheer amount of these threads is withering."

 

In all candour, I've heard a rumour that Dargo is also very fussy about English; though of course certain usage issues may just be flavour of the month.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They either foster the same irrational hate, or perhaps they're Jewish?

 

Who can tell?

 

What's amusing is that they seem to believe Islam is the ONLY religion in which it's followers perform unspeakable acts against "non-believers".

 

But remember.....

 

HITLER and the NAZIS were NOT Muslim.

 

Neither was THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

 

Nor is the KU KLUX KLAN.

 

Or the ROMANS.

 

And to believe that ALL Muslims are violent propagators of attacks on Western culture is on the same level as believing that....

 

All IRISH are drunkards.....

 

All Africa-Americans are theives and "gang-bangers"...and thrive on CARP....

 

All MEXICANS are basically lazy....

 

All ITALIANS are greasy women chasing WINOS....

 

And the list goes on.

 

Sepiatone

 

All Christians are bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for Sharia Law being imposed in liberal states, let's see how long it lasts.

 

They may accept it as being trendy. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Islamophobia” is not a constructive term—and words do matter. My intention is not to offend or inspire hatred in any form, but to promote honest conversation. In that spirit, I will outline the two major reasons that we should stop saying “Islamophobia.”

 

For starters, this idea silences honest criticism of Islam, which is something both necessary and warranted.

 

Let me be clear on this point: We should be criticizing the religion of Islam and its doctrines. We should absolutely not be criticizing all Muslim people. There is a massive difference and I am arguing in favor of the former and against the latter.

 

First, the doctrines of Islam are in fact worthy of high criticism. This is a religion whose holy book calls for the death of unbelievers, and for apostates to be slain. This same holy book grants men complete control over women, and openly permits and encourages brutal violence against women. This is a religion whose prophet ordered a woman to be stoned to death for adultery, and that anyone participating in homosexual activity is murdered. This is a religion that encourages torture, and that commands its adherents to fight blindly in the name of its God, even against their better judgment.

 

What’s more, there is an entire system of religious law, called Sharia, based solely on the Quran and the words of Muhammed, which happen to be the source of the atrocities I’ve just mentioned. And while it is easy to say that only “a few bad apples” believe in these things, that is simply not true. In a study conducted by Pew Research Center, for example, 99 percent of Muslims surveyed in Afghanistan supported Sharia being imposed as the official law of the land. While the numbers certainly differ by country, and there is variance even within Sharia supporters, the results are far from encouraging.

 

When one makes a truthful criticism of Islam and then is immediately silenced or condemned as an “Islamophobe,” it also silences the people who desperately need and want for that criticism to be heard, but can’t voice it themselves. With the privilege we have been granted, we can give a voice to those who most need one, and by using false claims of ignorance or bigotry to silence those trying to do just that, you are a contributor to the problem.

 

Also, the term “phobia” is unclear. By definition, a “phobia” is an extreme or irrational fear. While I do not believe fear is at all the best way to address this problem and actively advocate against fear, it is not inherently irrational to fear a doctrine or a set of ideas that calls for your death, or that endorses violence against women or that covets world domination.

 

Why is it there is no Christianity-ophobia, or Mormon-ophobia or Scientology-ophobia?

 

Because an author can write a book critical of Christianity and not have to go into hiding for years because of a Fatwah calling for their death. Salman Rushdie cannot say the same for Islam.

 

Because a cartoonist can publish a picture ridiculing Scientology, and not be killed for it. Stéphane Charbonnier cannot say the same for Islam.

 

No one should be killed for publishing a cartoon, or writing a book or leaving a religion, period. There should be no debate on this, no matter the circumstances, and it is not irrational to fear a doctrine that says otherwise.

 

Anti-Muslim bigotry is no doubt a problem and I do not want that to be lost in my criticisms. It needs to be fought whenever it rears its ugly head, but let’s call it what it is: anti-Muslim bigotry.

 

I am opposed to a “Muslim Ban” like the one our president and much of our country had called for. We cannot turn our backs on refugees that have found themselves in the worst of imaginable situations, yet we must keep an even head and think straight when discussing this issue.

 

Women’s rights, free speech, LGBT rights and religious freedom are all liberal values and values that represent everything great about the world, yet when someone truthfully criticizes the institution most threatening to those values, liberals often shout them down as “Islamophobic.” It is time for that to stop.

 

Islam as it currently stands is not a set of ideas that aligns itself with liberal values and actually stands at the antithesis of many of those values and that is simply a fact. That said, there are many liberal Muslims and Muslims who want to reform their religion for the better, and they are the ones who are really going to be able to do it. These are the people we should not only allow into this country, but encourage them to come and give them all of the possible support we can—and that starts with the truth.

 

Please, I implore you, stop silencing the truth and consider the consequences of doing so. Because for every night you lay in bed, satisfied with yourself for sniffing out another “Islamophobe,” a young girl in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan lies voiceless in her bed, steeped in the dread of what tomorrow will bring.

K. Driessen

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may accept it as being trendy. ;)

 

Gentlemen, your logic, or what is attempting to pass for "logic" here is, well, all screwed up!

 

Let me ask you guys a question here. Would you not say it's MOST likely the case that it's in so-called "red states" where the denizens are more likely to NOT understand the concept of the separation of Church and State, and because those states are where people seem to be more traditional in their "beliefs"?

 

AND, would you not say that in so-called "blue states" is where a greater percentage of those "dreaded secularists" reside, and people who DO understand the aforementioned concept?

 

And so, why would "liberal states" be more inclined to the idea allowing Shiria Law to become codified within the framework of their states?

 

Nope, ya see gentlemen, while perhaps the thought of that concept which those in "red states" seem to be griping about a whole lot lately, YOU know, that whole concept about "Religious Freedom" so many so-called "Christians" utilize to THEIR benefit in order to often rationalize their OWN deep-seeded hostilities toward some of those "man-made" secular laws on the books and/or against others of a different faith or even no faith at all, AT LEAST within those blue states there seems to be MORE of an understanding that this country was AND is based upon the thought that it doesn't matter at all WHICH religion you may believe in and attempt to practice its tenets as YOU believe them to be, but ALSO that such a thing should NEVER EVER EVER BE THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THIS COUNTRY!!!

 

Aah, but alas, I know I've just wasted all these keystrokes here in order for you two to understand the logic of my post here, and because of course since almost the dawn of mankind's creation of the concept of religion, whatever the hell I say to you here AND no matter how much I'll hit you square between the eyes with the LOGIC contained within it, "true believers" will STILL use that old fall-back measure of "but MY GOD tells me you're wrong".

 

(...and I'm guessin' the very reason Lawrence earlier deleted his very well expressed and dripping with logic post in this thing, and because HE'S smart enough to know this...AND although in THIS case I may be called "a slow-learner", I'm now going to take a page out of Lawrence's "playbook" and thus THIS post of mine here will be the very LAST one I'LL submit within this thread...and pretty much 'cause YOU GUYS will never understand this, and primarily because of that aforementioned "but MY GOD tells me you're wrong" mindset)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Islamophobia” is not a constructive term—and words do matter. My intention is not to offend or inspire hatred in any form, but to promote honest conversation. In that spirit, I will outline the two major reasons that we should stop saying “Islamophobia.”

 

For starters, this idea silences honest criticism of Islam, which is something both necessary and warranted.

 

Let me be clear on this point: We should be criticizing the religion of Islam and its doctrines. We should absolutely not be criticizing all Muslim people. There is a massive difference and I am arguing in favor of the former and against the latter.

 

First, the doctrines of Islam are in fact worthy of high criticism. This is a religion whose holy book calls for the death of unbelievers, and for apostates to be slain. This same holy book grants men complete control over women, and openly permits and encourages brutal violence against women. This is a religion whose prophet ordered a woman to be stoned to death for adultery, and that anyone participating in homosexual activity is murdered. This is a religion that encourages torture, and that commands its adherents to fight blindly in the name of its God, even against their better judgment.

 

What’s more, there is an entire system of religious law, called Sharia, based solely on the Quran and the words of Muhammed, which happen to be the source of the atrocities I’ve just mentioned. And while it is easy to say that only “a few bad apples” believe in these things, that is simply not true. In a study conducted by Pew Research Center, for example, 99 percent of Muslims surveyed in Afghanistan supported Sharia being imposed as the official law of the land. While the numbers certainly differ by country, and there is variance even within Sharia supporters, the results are far from encouraging.

 

When one makes a truthful criticism of Islam and then is immediately silenced or condemned as an “Islamophobe,” it also silences the people who desperately need and want for that criticism to be heard, but can’t voice it themselves. With the privilege we have been granted, we can give a voice to those who most need one, and by using false claims of ignorance or bigotry to silence those trying to do just that, you are a contributor to the problem.

 

Also, the term “phobia” is unclear. By definition, a “phobia” is an extreme or irrational fear. While I do not believe fear is at all the best way to address this problem and actively advocate against fear, it is not inherently irrational to fear a doctrine or a set of ideas that calls for your death, or that endorses violence against women or that covets world domination.

 

Why is it there is no Christianity-ophobia, or Mormon-ophobia or Scientology-ophobia?

 

Because an author can write a book critical of Christianity and not have to go into hiding for years because of a Fatwah calling for their death. Salman Rushdie cannot say the same for Islam.

 

Because a cartoonist can publish a picture ridiculing Scientology, and not be killed for it. Stéphane Charbonnier cannot say the same for Islam.

 

No one should be killed for publishing a cartoon, or writing a book or leaving a religion, period. There should be no debate on this, no matter the circumstances, and it is not irrational to fear a doctrine that says otherwise.

 

Anti-Muslim bigotry is no doubt a problem and I do not want that to be lost in my criticisms. It needs to be fought whenever it rears its ugly head, but let’s call it what it is: anti-Muslim bigotry.

 

I am opposed to a “Muslim Ban” like the one our president and much of our country had called for. We cannot turn our backs on refugees that have found themselves in the worst of imaginable situations, yet we must keep an even head and think straight when discussing this issue.

 

Women’s rights, free speech, LGBT rights and religious freedom are all liberal values and values that represent everything great about the world, yet when someone truthfully criticizes the institution most threatening to those values, liberals often shout them down as “Islamophobic.” It is time for that to stop.

 

Islam as it currently stands is not a set of ideas that aligns itself with liberal values and actually stands at the antithesis of many of those values and that is simply a fact. That said, there are many liberal Muslims and Muslims who want to reform their religion for the better, and they are the ones who are really going to be able to do it. These are the people we should not only allow into this country, but encourage them to come and give them all of the possible support we can—and that starts with the truth.

 

Please, I implore you, stop silencing the truth and consider the consequences of doing so. Because for every night you lay in bed, satisfied with yourself for sniffing out another “Islamophobe,” a young girl in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan lies voiceless in her bed, steeped in the dread of what tomorrow will bring.

K. Driessen

 

Well said.    All I can add is that as a secular humanist and atheist,  I'm more concerned about how the Christian religion tends to influence our laws and that this,  while unconstitutional in my view,  is accepted as 'normal' by the vast majority of conservative Christians.  E.g.   the overwhelming desire to ban same-sex-marriage.    Their fear of contraceptives.   Practices that clearly hurts no one.    The USA is a secular nation where no one religion should dominate public policy.

 

Note that in most countries the majority religion discriminates by passing religious based laws, but unlike the USA these are not secular nations.  E.g. in many states in India it is against the law to eat beef.   The so called reasoning that eating beef is being disrespectful to Hindus is an insane use of logic (just like SSM offending married Christian heterosexual couples).       

 

So glad the USA is a secular nation.   

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lafitte, as I am in England I will presume to correct your English:  I believe the sentence should be:

 

"The sheer amount of these threads is withering."

 

In all candour, I've heard a rumour that Dargo is also very fussy about English; though of course certain usage issues may just be flavour of the month.

 

It's okay this time ... since your in England, after all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay this time ... since your in England, after all.

 

laffite, as I am in Sedona Arizona, I will presume to correct your English. I believe the sentence should be:

 

"It's okay this time ... since you're in England, after all."

 

And in all candor, I've heard a rumor that Swithin is also very fussy about English, although of course certain usage issues may just be due to his being a big ol' Anglophile, and because that New York City boy spends so much of his time over there on that grouping of islands situated off the coast of continental Europe, and where for some inexplicable reason they STILL spell certain words within our shared common language inclusive of that oh-so needless letter 'u'.

 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most religions have scary things in their holy texts. Ever take a gander

at the OT. Just as bad as anything one might find in the Koran. There

are Islamophobes out there, people who go beyond criticism of the

tenets of Islam and push all kinds of ridiculous scenarios about a

Muslim "invasion," Muslims taking over the country, and a general

irrational fear of Muslims. 

 

I remember reading many years ago an article that had statistics

that showed among the most populous hyphenated Americans, the

Irish-Americans had the highest rate of alcoholism. Bottoms up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

laffite, as I am in Sedona Arizona, I will presume to correct your English. I believe the sentence should be:

 

"It's okay this time ... since you're in England, after all."

 

And in all candor, I've heard a rumor that Swithin is also very fussy about English, although of course certain usage issues may just be due to his being a big ol' Anglophile, and because that New York City boy spends so much of his time over there on that grouping of islands situated off the coast of continental Europe, and where for some inexplicable reason they STILL spell certain words within our shared common language inclusive of that oh-so needless letter 'u'.

 

;)

 

Congratulations. Sedona is finally on the map.

 

Now excuse me, while I scan for errors (excuse me, errours)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latrice still doesn't seem to get it.

 

I came up with "Islamaphobe" to describe those, who like "homophobes" concerning gays, have an irrational fear and hyperbolic misconception of a particular religion.  And yes, by this definition, there ARE "Christophobes", "Mormophobes" and "Scientolophobes".

 

And "phobia" can have several meanings, like "aversion", "dread", "fear", "antipathy" and "complex" among a few more.

 

It might also interest(probably not due to it's logic) that in the late 19th century through the turn of the 20th century, Most Americans had the same "phobia" towards Catholicism.  Also....

 

My cousin, a Jehovah's Witniss who lived in Montreal, talked of how as recent as the 1940's, Canadians even had installed laws allowing Witnesses to be JAILED just for being Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

I'd probably call them "Jehovaphobes".  ;)

 

Wanna hate Muslims?  Fine.  Nothing wrong in that.  Just only when that hate wanders into areas of trying to unconstitutionally pass LAWS against just worshipping as one, or, as was done by a Kalkaska County, MI official, going on "social" media and calling for the KILLING of any and all Muslims.  JUST as it's wrong for Muslims to call for the same in reverse.  Which is why any Muslims I know condemn the actions of the Taliban and ISIS.   And to be clear, Muslims DON'T believe in THEIR God, but only ONE God, as do Christians and  Jews.  As an agnostic, I have an issue with that belief in it's totality.  But I have NO problem with anyone who chooses to believe what dogma suits them. 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations. Sedona is finally on the map.

 

Now excuse me, while I scan for errors (excuse me, errours)

 

OH, Sedona's been "on the map" for QUITE some time now, laffite ol' boy!

 

(...you should SEE the tourist traffic around here sometimes, dude!)

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe those who have a fear of Jehovah's Witnesses should be

called doorbellophobes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latrice still doesn't seem to get it.

 

I came up with "Islamaphobe" to describe those, who like "homophobes" concerning gays, have an irrational fear and hyperbolic misconception of a particular religion.  And yes, by this definition, there ARE "Christophobes", "Mormophobes" and "Scientolophobes".

 

And "phobia" can have several meanings, like "aversion", "dread", "fear", "antipathy" and "complex" among a few more.

 

It might also interest(probably not due to it's logic) that in the late 19th century through the turn of the 20th century, Most Americans had the same "phobia" towards Catholicism.  Also....

 

My cousin, a Jehovah's Witniss who lived in Montreal, talked of how as recent as the 1940's, Canadians even had installed laws allowing Witnesses to be JAILED just for being Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

I'd probably call them "Jehovaphobes".  ;)

 

Wanna hate Muslims?  Fine.  Nothing wrong in that.  Just only when that hate wanders into areas of trying to unconstitutionally pass LAWS against just worshipping as one, or, as was done by a Kalkaska County, MI official, going on "social" media and calling for the KILLING of any and all Muslims.  JUST as it's wrong for Muslims to call for the same in reverse.  Which is why any Muslims I know condemn the actions of the Taliban and ISIS.   And to be clear, Muslims DON'T believe in THEIR God, but only ONE God, as do Christians and  Jews.  As an agnostic, I have an issue with that belief in it's totality.  But I have NO problem with anyone who chooses to believe what dogma suits them. 

 

Sepiatone

 

I treat ALL religious faiths with respect whether if I agree with their point of view or not.  It's the EXTREMIST I hate, if it's ISIS regarding the Islamic faith or cult groups like Jim Jones twisting  the Christian faith.  I don't hate Jehovah Witnesses, just that they are ANNOYING.

 

Jim Jones more a devil in flesh.

 

jim_jones-620x412.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe those who have a fear of Jehovah's Witnesses should be

called doorbellophobes.

 

Wouldn't that cover the Avon lady (husbands)? :lol:

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that cover the Avon lady (husbands)? :lol:

 

And girl scouts and school kids who want to go on a trip. But I doubt any

of them would be as persistent as the JW. Somebody should rework the

lyrics to All Along the Watchtower for folks trying to avoid the JW coming to

their front door. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never lodged a complain against either a thread or a poster. These kinds of threads though, vile as they are, are the closest I've come to doing it.

 

I just hope the moderators continue to keep an eye open for them, and will blow them off the site.

 

It is a shame, though, as Sepia pointed out, that reasoned arguments against the bigotry get eliminated along with the hatred expressed towards a minority.

 

So who got darkblue kicked off of the message board for a video about an interesting topic affecting millions of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who got darkblue kicked off of the message board for a video about an interesting topic affecting millions of people?

I'd like to know too, so I can block the Cry baby!

 

Just let the moderators do their jobs in applying the terms and conditions of the policy/code of conduct without somebody fettering their discretionary authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who got darkblue kicked off of the message board for a video about an interesting topic affecting millions of people?

 

darkblue has not been kicked off or likewise banned.  Some of his recent threads are gone.

 

One bad thing about any poster being banned ALL threads, post are instantly gone which so far haven't happened with DB.  Stated he will be gone a couple of days.

 

One of his threads, still intact.

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/135803-marriages-on-the-decline/

 

 

Question, can we see "Warning Points" in other poster profiles.  All I see is mine which is 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

darkblue has not been kicked off or likewise banned.  I don't even see a "Warning Point" in his profile.  some of his recent threads are gone.

 

One bad thing about any poster being banned ALL threads, post are instantly gone which so far haven't happened with DB.  Stated he will be gone a couple of days.

 

The only person who can see warning points is the profile user, as far as I know.

 

The moderators wouldn't delete posts or otherwise dole out punishment based on the whims of a single user, or even a group of users. From what I understand, if a post gets reported, the Mod checks it to see if it somehow violates the Code of Conduct. If so, they zap it to the cornfield. I don't really know what warrants warning points, suspensions or permanent banishment. I've had many of my posts zapped in the past, but no points as yet.

 

So if darkblue was really punished because of a video he posted, then I would guess the person responsible would be darkblue, since they wouldn't have zapped it if it didn't violate the CoC. Whether someone reported it, multiple people reported it, or a mod on their own saw it and zapped it, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person who can see warning points is the profile user, as far as I know.

 

The moderators wouldn't delete posts or otherwise dole out punishment based on the whims of a single user, or even a group of users. From what I understand, if a post gets reported, the Mod checks it to see if it somehow violates the Code of Conduct. If so, they zap it to the cornfield. I don't really know what warrants warning points, suspensions or permanent banishment. I've had many of my posts zapped in the past, but no points as yet.

 

So if darkblue was really punished because of a video he posted, then I would guess the person responsible would be darkblue, since they wouldn't have zapped it if it didn't violate the CoC. Whether someone reported it, multiple people reported it, or a mod on their own saw it and zapped it, I don't know.

 

 

Several years ago, a poster was banned for attacking other members, I couldn't find a single post afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years ago, a poster was banned for attacking other members, I couldn't find a single post afterwards.

 

Yeah, if someone gets banned, it looks like all of their posts get deleted. That's why I'm pretty sure darkblue wasn't banned. And I don't think he was suspended either, as he was on this afternoon, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us