Guest guest Posted March 12, 2000 Report Share Posted March 12, 2000 +ACI-M. Visconti M.D.+ACI- +ADw-gpuovi+AEA-tin.it+AD4- Hello+ACE- this is Mark please send your messeges in simple text. not in HTML format, otherwise we read messages full of strange caracters and we dont understand the right sense of the messages. greetings to everibody geovani+AD4- Hi Mark+ACE- The problem is not really HTML, but the choice of +ACI-language+ACI- or +ACI-idiom+ACI- or +ACI-character codes+ACI- that you can select in you email sftware. Try UTF-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2000 Report Share Posted March 12, 2000 Geovani, My e-mail program (Eudora Light) does not seem to have a UTF-7 option. You should be able to see below what strange codes your posts contain. Regards, Ewald. > " geovani " <inandor > >+ACI-M. Visconti M.D.+ACI- +ADw-gpuovi+AEA-tin.it+AD4- > >Hello+ACE- this is Mark >please send your messeges in simple text. not in HTML format, >otherwise we read messages full of strange caracters and we dont understand >the right sense of the messages. >greetings to everibody > >geovani+AD4- Hi Mark+ACE- The problem is not really HTML, but the >choice of +ACI-language+ACI- or +ACI-idiom+ACI- or +ACI-character codes+ACI- that >you can select in you email sftware. Try UTF-7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2000 Report Share Posted March 12, 2000 Ewald Berkers <eberkers Geovani, My e-mail program (Eudora Light) does not seem to have a UTF-7 option. You should be able to see below what strange codes your posts contain. Regards, Ewald. geovani> Strange. I can read it perfectly! I´ll try UFT-8...Give me a feed back. > " geovani " <inandor > > " M. Visconti M.D. " <gpuovi > >Hello! this is Mark >please send your messeges in simple text. not in HTML format, >otherwise we read messages full of strange caracters and we dont understand >the right sense of the messages. >greetings to everibody > >geovani> Hi Mark! The problem is not really HTML, but the >choice of " language " or " idiom " or " character codes " that >you can select in you email sftware. Try UTF-7 ------ PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click./1/2121/1/_/331483/_/952887436/ ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2003 Report Share Posted September 10, 2003 All, > Yes, I'm sure acupuncture was degraded by its natural host as > Unschuld points out, but does it need further degrading from the fly- > by-night comments he makes about its efficacy? Paul's point is that neither acupuncture specifically nor Chinese medicine generally -- nor biomedicine -- are accepted because they are efficable but because they fit the congitive aesthetics of their time. No pre-modern lay Chinese, any more than a modern Westerner, had a working knowledge of how effective the treatments they received may have been at scale. Both yin-yang and the biological sciences stood as meaningful guarantees of validity -- not because they are proven -- but because they are supported by concurrent beliefs. In Paul's work all medicine is co-equal in these regards. One of the great accomplishments of his study is that the principles are applicable to medicine, not just CM or just WM, but the human exercise we call medicine itself. We Paul told the German AMA that they were no longer a profession because they could no longer control their fees, he was applying the same methods as when he said that the Chinese definitely do not consider CM more efficable than WM . > Can you elaborate on th historical mythologies you mentioned? I think the most dangerous are the ideas that Chinese medicine exists as a congruent intellectual monolith, or that there is a " true " Chinese medicine that is THE sine qua non . This includes the idea that systematic correspondences describe universal " truths, " rather than heuristic methods of problem solving, as well as the idea that there is someone, or some tradition that has access to an ultimate CM (and thus that others are technically or morally inferior). Ironically, these notions assume that the Chinese logic is identical to our own and thus disguise Chinese thinking. To the contrary, Chinese thinking (about medicine or anything else) never developed methods for removing from the corpus of knowledge that which had been in some manner labeled as false. Traditional Chinese medical logic has a tool box quality in which experts select a logical approach on a case-by-case basis, choosing from among even contradictory principles as the case demands. > I quote again from his speech " Chinese > medicine is not preferred by a segment of the population because it > is more effective than Western medicine (that is definitely not the > case) " . You are irritated by Dr. Unschuld because he has claimed that CM is not more effective than CM. Correct? Well, make you case? Don't tell us what you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access? If not in East Asian, where? And, East Asia, perhaps even particularly China, has had no difficulty embracing WM, in part, as Unschuld points-out, because the two forms share essential pinciples. Consider, for example, surgery and public health -- two medical arts that CM never fully developed despite very early intimations. While you may complain of overuse, too quick use, or other over-valuation for surgery, or you can complain that you do not hold to the germ theory on which public health measures from city sewers to water purification are based, you cannot dismiss that life expectancy, and the incidence of crippling and debilitating illness, have been greatly ameliorated by the biosciences. The fact that surgery and chemotherapy do not cure cancer handily does not eliminate the fact that people do not die in vast numbers from cholera and typhoid in any population where WM services can be afforded. A certain humane humility in the face of biomedical accomplishment is important because it is the root of the as yet un-made decision as to whether we are presenting ourselves as offering an " alternative medicine " (one capable of replacing biomedicine) or whether we offer a " complementary medicine " (one to enhance and extend). The difference is critical. Is our contest with the malfeasance and greed of doctors or is it with bioscience itself? There is no more possibility that everything in CM is useful than there is possibility that nothing in CM is useful. Once that is admitted, the idea that CM is valid because it is rooted in a set of universal, always-true principles, must be abandoned along with the other easy justifications for its efficacy. For example, the more we know about the intellectual history of CM, the less we are able to say that CM has proven its efficacy by longevity. It has proven the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and that implies that a sufficient number of its clients percieve a benefit, which in turn implies efficacy. However, the pretense that we do not have a case to prove to our own populations has done us no good. Rather than bitching about Paul's failure to provide lip-service to our preferred self-image, we should take his clue that popular acceptance is rooted in the population's beliefs. People are, in my opinion, ready to accept a longevous, practical medicine rooted in human observation and experience. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 You are irritated by Dr. Unschuld because he has claimed that CM is not more effective than CM. Correct? Well, make you case? Don't tell us what you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access? If not in East Asian, where? And, East Asia, perhaps even particularly China, has had no difficulty embracing WM, in part, as Unschuld points-out, because the two forms share essential pinciples. >>>>My goodness are we going to bring in evidence and logic into the discussion, instead of emotional ranting and support. Bob i always value your emails they are always well thought out Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Consider, for example, surgery and public health -- two medical arts that CM never fully developed despite very early intimations. While you may complain of overuse, too quick use, or other over-valuation for surgery, or you can complain that you do not hold to the germ theory on which public health measures from city sewers to water purification are based, you cannot dismiss that life expectancy, and the incidence of crippling and debilitating illness, have been greatly ameliorated by the biosciences. The fact that surgery and chemotherapy do not cure cancer handily does not eliminate the fact that people do not die in vast numbers from cholera and typhoid in any population where WM services can be afforded. >>>>And for example my wife gets more thank you flowers and wine bottles from patients happy with their surgical outcome, than most practitioners in this list even see. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Here I would tend to agree with Matt. It is high time those who write and speak - especially before WM - resist the esoteric rhetoric even though they have a relative point of logic. Let's get to the bottom of reality. I don't know anything about Paul but I suspect that he is not really a CM practitioner......therefore how could he possibly write about it's efficacy? History - ok. Truth about politics - ok. Truth about bastardization and westernization - ok. truth about people selling their souls for some ego chips or money - ok. Components of people's psyche or what makes them tick - ok. But put all that together in a bucket and it doesn't mean a hill of beans. Lets talk about RESULTS....and practitioners like Matt, myself and thousands of others GET real results...whereas WM is sucking wind..... especially in it's inability to treat chronic diseases. Bob.....when are certain people in certain positions going to be responsible enough to CM to help show the real - day in and day out RESULTS. And please don;t tell me that it can't be proven. That's pure foolishness. I've put the challenge out there numerous times and major western medican universities RUN in the opposite direction when I present the challenge for proof with BaGuaFa and the simplest of myofascial syndromes called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. One couldn;t pick a more simpler complex to show the real results of TCM. When they HEAR that some $20 billion could be saved - annually.....well now....that puts some fear into them and off they run in the opposite direction. Kinda of funny-interesting don;t you think? So let's TALK reality. I have no interest in proving anything about Unschuld which may or may not be true. What I have an interest in is showing all of the 'doubting thomases' that they know nothing about what they speak. What comes out of their mouths is nothing but drool and it is high time we do something about it. What we can and should do.....between us all.....is work on a project to prove up CM by real practitioners coupled with those who write. I am sure Bob....you wouldn't mind writing about the real results which can be documented? Richard > Bob wrote " Don't tell us what > you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any > population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given > equal access? " > > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of thousands > of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose practices have > grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to Western medicine who > have found CM to work better for SOME of their real world problems. > > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of CM > in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears of > environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that in certain > cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has Unschuld ever > acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of his talk on Nature > Vs. Chemistry and Technology: > > " The increasing acceptance of is a question of people's > outlook on the world that will not disappear (bold mine) until the existential > anxieties and fears have dissolved or until the feeling arises that science > and technology takes these anxieties and fears seriously. " > > This sounds to me like he is giving WM doctors/administrators advice on just > what it will take to make the acceptance of CM disappear. This does not > sound to me like an individual who finds anything of superior clinical value in > CM at all. In the Nature VS Chemistry talk, he is arguing against establishing > any sort of CM program at his university stating that " Those who exert such > pressure are unaware of the difficulties that such a move would involve. " > While it is true and valuable that Unschuld has shown that CM is not > historically based on one unified set of principals, these " problems " pale in comparison > to the clinical value CM techniques offer suffering people. This stuff > works! Anyone who believes this would worry about figuring out the history and > theory concerns later. If Unschuld believed this medicine was valuable, would > you not expect him to help his university figure out a way to teach some aspect > of CM, to develop some version of a CM program? Instead, at least to my > reading of this speech, he argues why this would cause too many " difficulties. " > > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld publish > an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his views. He did > this in a German publication and is interested in doing this here. I may be > way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain himself as I > certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an opportunity to > respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. Bob, you told me you > were too busy before - got time for this now? > > Matt Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Sharon And I would say it might be a little more than JUST the points........it might have more to do with certain certain strategic places in the body wherein the tubes of flowing fluids & forces(qi) can be affected and bilaterally makes sense. Travel jetlag for sure - stagnates both qi & fluids. One might consider that this is opening up those pathways. A comparison of sorts.....like when ones goes for arthroscopic knee surgery. The surgeon should be telling the patient - if at all possible - to exercise and build up the quads weeks before the surgery so they don;t lose as much muscle mass. Then the recovery goes much better. Not exactly the same but you get the idea. Richard > Hi Richard, Matt and Bob, > > In my state worker's comp doesn't allow for acupuncture from acupuncturists, > they can get AP from MD's, yet in the state of NSW, they can get AP from > acupuncturists. So when I get px's prepared to pay for AP when they can't get > benefit from mths of physio, I tend to think that there is more going on than > just a cultural preference / belife. > > I have thought of a very basic AP study for jetlag, and wonder if it might > be a candidate Richard. The fundamental theory is to select the source point > for the old and new time zones. Then the traveller taps the two source pts > on one side of the body and then the other. > > It is nice way to go with each person I have given this to finding that th > eir recovery time in the new time zone dramatically reduced. It is also very > simple. There could be a control of no tapping and a comparision to other > treatments, ie flower essences, vitamins or whatever. If / when it is shown to > be effective it also has a great deal to offer not just the traveller, but > also the flow on ie tourist doing more touring, business people possibly > making better choices, drivers not falling asleep at the wheel etc etc etc. > > It also takes away from the question is it the practitioner? It directly > tests the theory of the pts selected... just a thought! > > cheers > Sharon > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Bob wrote " Don't tell us what you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access? " ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of thousands of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose practices have grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to Western medicine who have found CM to work better for SOME of their real world problems. I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of CM in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears of environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that in certain cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has Unschuld ever acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of his talk on Nature Vs. Chemistry and Technology: " The increasing acceptance of is a question of people's outlook on the world that will not disappear (bold mine) until the existential anxieties and fears have dissolved or until the feeling arises that science and technology takes these anxieties and fears seriously. " This sounds to me like he is giving WM doctors/administrators advice on just what it will take to make the acceptance of CM disappear. This does not sound to me like an individual who finds anything of superior clinical value in CM at all. In the Nature VS Chemistry talk, he is arguing against establishing any sort of CM program at his university stating that " Those who exert such pressure are unaware of the difficulties that such a move would involve. " While it is true and valuable that Unschuld has shown that CM is not historically based on one unified set of principals, these " problems " pale in comparison to the clinical value CM techniques offer suffering people. This stuff works! Anyone who believes this would worry about figuring out the history and theory concerns later. If Unschuld believed this medicine was valuable, would you not expect him to help his university figure out a way to teach some aspect of CM, to develop some version of a CM program? Instead, at least to my reading of this speech, he argues why this would cause too many " difficulties. " I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld publish an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his views. He did this in a German publication and is interested in doing this here. I may be way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain himself as I certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an opportunity to respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. Bob, you told me you were too busy before - got time for this now? Matt Bauer - Robert L. Felt Chinese Medicine Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:14 PM Re: Digest Number 178 All, > Yes, I'm sure acupuncture was degraded by its natural host as > Unschuld points out, but does it need further degrading from the fly- > by-night comments he makes about its efficacy? Paul's point is that neither acupuncture specifically nor Chinese medicine generally -- nor biomedicine -- are accepted because they are efficable but because they fit the congitive aesthetics of their time. No pre-modern lay Chinese, any more than a modern Westerner, had a working knowledge of how effective the treatments they received may have been at scale. Both yin-yang and the biological sciences stood as meaningful guarantees of validity -- not because they are proven -- but because they are supported by concurrent beliefs. In Paul's work all medicine is co-equal in these regards. One of the great accomplishments of his study is that the principles are applicable to medicine, not just CM or just WM, but the human exercise we call medicine itself. We Paul told the German AMA that they were no longer a profession because they could no longer control their fees, he was applying the same methods as when he said that the Chinese definitely do not consider CM more efficable than WM . > Can you elaborate on th historical mythologies you mentioned? I think the most dangerous are the ideas that Chinese medicine exists as a congruent intellectual monolith, or that there is a " true " Chinese medicine that is THE sine qua non . This includes the idea that systematic correspondences describe universal " truths, " rather than heuristic methods of problem solving, as well as the idea that there is someone, or some tradition that has access to an ultimate CM (and thus that others are technically or morally inferior). Ironically, these notions assume that the Chinese logic is identical to our own and thus disguise Chinese thinking. To the contrary, Chinese thinking (about medicine or anything else) never developed methods for removing from the corpus of knowledge that which had been in some manner labeled as false. Traditional Chinese medical logic has a tool box quality in which experts select a logical approach on a case-by-case basis, choosing from among even contradictory principles as the case demands. > I quote again from his speech " Chinese > medicine is not preferred by a segment of the population because it > is more effective than Western medicine (that is definitely not the > case) " . You are irritated by Dr. Unschuld because he has claimed that CM is not more effective than CM. Correct? Well, make you case? Don't tell us what you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given equal access? If not in East Asian, where? And, East Asia, perhaps even particularly China, has had no difficulty embracing WM, in part, as Unschuld points-out, because the two forms share essential pinciples. Consider, for example, surgery and public health -- two medical arts that CM never fully developed despite very early intimations. While you may complain of overuse, too quick use, or other over-valuation for surgery, or you can complain that you do not hold to the germ theory on which public health measures from city sewers to water purification are based, you cannot dismiss that life expectancy, and the incidence of crippling and debilitating illness, have been greatly ameliorated by the biosciences. The fact that surgery and chemotherapy do not cure cancer handily does not eliminate the fact that people do not die in vast numbers from cholera and typhoid in any population where WM services can be afforded. A certain humane humility in the face of biomedical accomplishment is important because it is the root of the as yet un-made decision as to whether we are presenting ourselves as offering an " alternative medicine " (one capable of replacing biomedicine) or whether we offer a " complementary medicine " (one to enhance and extend). The difference is critical. Is our contest with the malfeasance and greed of doctors or is it with bioscience itself? There is no more possibility that everything in CM is useful than there is possibility that nothing in CM is useful. Once that is admitted, the idea that CM is valid because it is rooted in a set of universal, always-true principles, must be abandoned along with the other easy justifications for its efficacy. For example, the more we know about the intellectual history of CM, the less we are able to say that CM has proven its efficacy by longevity. It has proven the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and that implies that a sufficient number of its clients percieve a benefit, which in turn implies efficacy. However, the pretense that we do not have a case to prove to our own populations has done us no good. Rather than bitching about Paul's failure to provide lip-service to our preferred self-image, we should take his clue that popular acceptance is rooted in the population's beliefs. People are, in my opinion, ready to accept a longevous, practical medicine rooted in human observation and experience. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2003 Report Share Posted September 11, 2003 Hi Richard, Matt and Bob, In my state worker's comp doesn't allow for acupuncture from acupuncturists, they can get AP from MD's, yet in the state of NSW, they can get AP from acupuncturists. So when I get px's prepared to pay for AP when they can't get benefit from mths of physio, I tend to think that there is more going on than just a cultural preference / belife. I have thought of a very basic AP study for jetlag, and wonder if it might be a candidate Richard. The fundamental theory is to select the source point for the old and new time zones. Then the traveller taps the two source pts on one side of the body and then the other. It is nice way to go with each person I have given this to finding that their recovery time in the new time zone dramatically reduced. It is also very simple. There could be a control of no tapping and a comparision to other treatments, ie flower essences, vitamins or whatever. If / when it is shown to be effective it also has a great deal to offer not just the traveller, but also the flow on ie tourist doing more touring, business people possibly making better choices, drivers not falling asleep at the wheel etc etc etc. It also takes away from the question is it the practitioner? It directly tests the theory of the pts selected... just a thought! cheers Sharon - acudoc11 Chinese Medicine Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:36 PM Re: Digest Number 178 Here I would tend to agree with Matt. It is high time those who write and speak - especially before WM - resist the esoteric rhetoric even though they have a relative point of logic. Let's get to the bottom of reality. I don't know anything about Paul but I suspect that he is not really a CM practitioner......therefore how could he possibly write about it's efficacy? History - ok. Truth about politics - ok. Truth about bastardization and westernization - ok. truth about people selling their souls for some ego chips or money - ok. Components of people's psyche or what makes them tick - ok. But put all that together in a bucket and it doesn't mean a hill of beans. Lets talk about RESULTS....and practitioners like Matt, myself and thousands of others GET real results...whereas WM is sucking wind..... especially in it's inability to treat chronic diseases. Bob.....when are certain people in certain positions going to be responsible enough to CM to help show the real - day in and day out RESULTS. And please don;t tell me that it can't be proven. That's pure foolishness. I've put the challenge out there numerous times and major western medican universities RUN in the opposite direction when I present the challenge for proof with BaGuaFa and the simplest of myofascial syndromes called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. One couldn;t pick a more simpler complex to show the real results of TCM. When they HEAR that some $20 billion could be saved - annually.....well now....that puts some fear into them and off they run in the opposite direction. Kinda of funny-interesting don;t you think? So let's TALK reality. I have no interest in proving anything about Unschuld which may or may not be true. What I have an interest in is showing all of the 'doubting thomases' that they know nothing about what they speak. What comes out of their mouths is nothing but drool and it is high time we do something about it. What we can and should do.....between us all.....is work on a project to prove up CM by real practitioners coupled with those who write. I am sure Bob....you wouldn't mind writing about the real results which can be documented? Richard > Bob wrote " Don't tell us what > you believe, tell us where on the planet you find evidence that any > population has found CM more effective, or has chosen it over WM given > equal access? " > > ANSWER: In my treatment rooms, and in the treatment facilities of thousands > of reasonably trained acupuncturists/CM practitioners, whose practices have > grown treating Western patients with plenty of access to Western medicine who > have found CM to work better for SOME of their real world problems. > > I have read many of Unschuld's statements in which he credits the rise of CM > in the West to romanticized versions of history and existential fears of > environmental or energy concerns, but I have never heard him say that in certain > cases some CM techniques work better than WM techniques. Has Unschuld ever > acknowledged this? I hope I am wrong. Read the last line of his talk on Nature > Vs. Chemistry and Technology: > > " The increasing acceptance of is a question of people's > outlook on the world that will not disappear (bold mine) until the existential > anxieties and fears have dissolved or until the feeling arises that science > and technology takes these anxieties and fears seriously. " > > This sounds to me like he is giving WM doctors/administrators advice on just > what it will take to make the acceptance of CM disappear. This does not > sound to me like an individual who finds anything of superior clinical value in > CM at all. In the Nature VS Chemistry talk, he is arguing against establishing > any sort of CM program at his university stating that " Those who exert such > pressure are unaware of the difficulties that such a move would involve. " > While it is true and valuable that Unschuld has shown that CM is not > historically based on one unified set of principals, these " problems " pale in comparison > to the clinical value CM techniques offer suffering people. This stuff > works! Anyone who believes this would worry about figuring out the history and > theory concerns later. If Unschuld believed this medicine was valuable, would > you not expect him to help his university figure out a way to teach some aspect > of CM, to develop some version of a CM program? Instead, at least to my > reading of this speech, he argues why this would cause too many " difficulties. " > > I made to suggestion to Dr. Unschuld and to Bob Felt, that Unschuld publish > an interview in Acupuncture Today in which he could explain his views. He did > this in a German publication and is interested in doing this here. I may be > way off and reading him wrong and would like him to explain himself as I > certainly have questions. This would not be an attack, but an opportunity to > respond in his own words to those who have criticized him. Bob, you told me you > were too busy before - got time for this now? > > Matt Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.