Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Jumping in on this thread: I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - Matthew Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Hi Mathew, That is an interesting concept of labelling action and reactive. I was wondering where the Spirit fits into such an idea? Best wishes, Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 10:59 AM Chinese Medicine Two Medicines Jumping in on this thread: I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - Matthew Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Leave it to you Sharon, to zero in on the one exception to my simple rule. Spirit is the wild-card. If a Shaman-healer intervenes in the spiritual realm to affect the well-being of a person on the material plane, does this qualify as an Action or Reaction (mechanical intervention of facilitating natural healing) type of approach? Spirits are part of nature so one could say this facilitates natural healing. On the other hand, a Shaman's actions could be seen as a unnatural intervention and this would be of the Action variety. The one rule you can always count on is there is no one rule you can always count on. While the wild-card of spirit does add some shades of grey to my simplified black or white dual categorization, this categorization still offers great practical benefits for most concerns regarding how to evaluate healing approaches. - Matthew Bauer - Sharon Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:01 PM RE: Two Medicines Hi Mathew, That is an interesting concept of labelling action and reactive. I was wondering where the Spirit fits into such an idea? Best wishes, Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 10:59 AM Chinese Medicine Two Medicines Jumping in on this thread: I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - Matthew Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Hi Matt & All, Matt Bauer wrote: > I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over > for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by > facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. > Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we > keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people > have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of > therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations > either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study > any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call > these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really > believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention > approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether > we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much > more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. > conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - > Matthew Bauer All things can be broken down in many divisions - 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. I see medicine as a unity - one highly complex system that no one human being can hope to master, even in several reincarnations. Professionals, therefore, must rely on the strengths and expertise of others if they do not have those knowledge-skills themselves. A diamond has many faces, all of which define the beauty of the whole. In breaking down the whole into its parts, we must retain the integrity of the whole. Best regards, Email: < WORK : Teagasc, c/o 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0] HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0] WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing it " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Matt, I love modelling, it helps me make sense of the complex and so appreciate others who model! I suppose in Spirit I was thinking also of the Po, Hun, Shen as much as thinking of Spirits. So here I am just testing some of the boundaries of your model, to get a feel for it. Psychiatry sees personality issues, say depression, as a chemical imbalance, whilst in other modalities it could be anything from toxicity, to dietary to aggressive energy as in Worsley acupuncture, etc. So would the taking the drugs to address the chemical balance in a depressed person be reaction medicine, where as supposedly other modalities would be action based seeking the find the cause of the depression? One of the issues I still haven't a solid handle on is the notion that perhaps we are say Spirits having a physical experience, then our bodies aren't the beginning and the end of health and perhaps our medical focus should not be quite so organically focused. Perhaps our bodies and minds are just the means of having the physical experience. Suppose I used the analogy of a car and driver; if the car goes off the road, we suppose there is a problem with the steering, the physical systems, and miss altogether the driver attached to the steering. So I wonder if we don't have a bias to treat the car (body) and miss the driver (Spirit)? It all comes down to what we think health is and what our aim in attaining / developing / maintaining it is and of course what tools we have to work with. Just some wonderings! Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 11:28 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Two Medicines Leave it to you Sharon, to zero in on the one exception to my simple rule. Spirit is the wild-card. If a Shaman-healer intervenes in the spiritual realm to affect the well-being of a person on the material plane, does this qualify as an Action or Reaction (mechanical intervention of facilitating natural healing) type of approach? Spirits are part of nature so one could say this facilitates natural healing. On the other hand, a Shaman's actions could be seen as a unnatural intervention and this would be of the Action variety. The one rule you can always count on is there is no one rule you can always count on. While the wild-card of spirit does add some shades of grey to my simplified black or white dual categorization, this categorization still offers great practical benefits for most concerns regarding how to evaluate healing approaches. - Matthew Bauer - Sharon Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:01 PM RE: Two Medicines Hi Mathew, That is an interesting concept of labelling action and reactive. I was wondering where the Spirit fits into such an idea? Best wishes, Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 10:59 AM Chinese Medicine Two Medicines Jumping in on this thread: I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - Matthew Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Perhaps our bodies and minds are just the means of having the physical experience. Suppose I used the analogy of a car and driver; if the car goes off the road, we suppose there is a problem with the steering, the physical systems, and miss altogether the driver attached to the steering. >>>>>>I guess one must be open to any of the above possibilities without preconceived ideas. That is the difficult part. We all tend to see what we know and hear what we want to. The discussion of integrative med goes to the heart of such issues. Does one need to understand other models to see the limitations in one's own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 I love talking about issues of a spiritual nature and believe these have more influence in our lives than most give credit for. My classification of two medical approaches attempts to simplify a complex issue for the practical advantages such a simplification can afford. There are always shades of grey between black and white, but I think this classification works better than any other. I didn't set out to do this but it is late and to save time and explain myself I will quote from my book. I apologize if this violate the list protocol. - Matthew Bauer " ACTION MEDICINE VS. REACTION MEDICINE Whenever a healer does something to their patient in an attempt to help their health, they are in effect, taking some sort of action. They are manipulating or changing their patient's status quo. When such action is taken, there will be two basic consequences. The first will be the direct consequence of that action and second will be the body's reaction to having its status quo changed. To put it simply: every action causes a reaction. Modern medicine's use of drugs and surgery are examples of action medicine - the intervening approach. When a drug such as an antibiotic is introduced into the body, its direct consequence is to kill bacteria. It will do this in a laboratory petre dish as well as in the human body. Unlike a petre dish however, when such a substance is introduced into a living system including the human body, this will also cause some sort of reaction. If this reaction causes harm, it is called a side effect, also known as an adverse reaction. Whether or not the body's reaction to a drug such as an antibiotic causes enough noticeable harm to be called a side effect, there must be some sort of reaction as the body adjusts itself after having its status quo changed. With action medicine such as drug therapy or surgery, the hope is that the direct consequence of the action will be to improve the patient's problem and that the body's reaction will be minor and of little or no consequence. Acupuncture, on the other hand, is a type of reaction medicine - the self-healing approach. In the case of reaction medicine the goals are the opposite of those for action medicine - one now hopes the direct action is of little or no consequence and that the reaction will improve the patient's symptoms. Researchers around the world have been discovering that acupuncture can cause the body to produce a wide array of natural substances including those that reduce pain and inflammation, enhance immune function, balance hormones, and produce feelings of well-being. The brain imaging research being done by Dr. Cho and others strongly suggest these effects take place by stimulating key brain centers that exert control on the body's ability to produce these and other body-regulating substances. This is how reaction medicine works - by stimulating the body to produce its own medicine as opposed to intervening in place of the body's healing processes as is done in action medicine. The fact that it is possible to stimulate healing reactions is almost completely unknown to modern medicine but actually constitutes an important compliment to action medicine. " - Sharon Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:28 PM RE: Two Medicines Matt, I love modelling, it helps me make sense of the complex and so appreciate others who model! I suppose in Spirit I was thinking also of the Po, Hun, Shen as much as thinking of Spirits. So here I am just testing some of the boundaries of your model, to get a feel for it. Psychiatry sees personality issues, say depression, as a chemical imbalance, whilst in other modalities it could be anything from toxicity, to dietary to aggressive energy as in Worsley acupuncture, etc. So would the taking the drugs to address the chemical balance in a depressed person be reaction medicine, where as supposedly other modalities would be action based seeking the find the cause of the depression? One of the issues I still haven't a solid handle on is the notion that perhaps we are say Spirits having a physical experience, then our bodies aren't the beginning and the end of health and perhaps our medical focus should not be quite so organically focused. Perhaps our bodies and minds are just the means of having the physical experience. Suppose I used the analogy of a car and driver; if the car goes off the road, we suppose there is a problem with the steering, the physical systems, and miss altogether the driver attached to the steering. So I wonder if we don't have a bias to treat the car (body) and miss the driver (Spirit)? It all comes down to what we think health is and what our aim in attaining / developing / maintaining it is and of course what tools we have to work with. Just some wonderings! Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 11:28 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Two Medicines Leave it to you Sharon, to zero in on the one exception to my simple rule. Spirit is the wild-card. If a Shaman-healer intervenes in the spiritual realm to affect the well-being of a person on the material plane, does this qualify as an Action or Reaction (mechanical intervention of facilitating natural healing) type of approach? Spirits are part of nature so one could say this facilitates natural healing. On the other hand, a Shaman's actions could be seen as a unnatural intervention and this would be of the Action variety. The one rule you can always count on is there is no one rule you can always count on. While the wild-card of spirit does add some shades of grey to my simplified black or white dual categorization, this categorization still offers great practical benefits for most concerns regarding how to evaluate healing approaches. - Matthew Bauer - Sharon Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 5:01 PM RE: Two Medicines Hi Mathew, That is an interesting concept of labelling action and reactive. I was wondering where the Spirit fits into such an idea? Best wishes, Matt Bauer [acu.guy] Monday, 14 March 2005 10:59 AM Chinese Medicine Two Medicines Jumping in on this thread: I believe there are two medicines: one that intervenes and takes over for an organism's natural healing processes, and one that works by facilitating or stimulating an organism's natural healing processes. Both of these methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. If we keep these two methods in mind, this will answer many questions people have such as what types of conditions can be treated with what types of therapies, how successful treatment will proceed, what limitations either of the two approaches will have, and even how we can best study any given therapy. I offer thoughts on this in my book where I call these two methods " Action Medicine " and " Reaction Medicine. " I really believe this simple, dual-classification of medical intervention approaches offers us the best means to understand all therapies whether we wish to try to integrate them or not. This, to my mind, is a much more practical distinction than labeling methods as alternative vs. conventional, traditional vs. modern, Eastern vs. Western, etc. - Matthew Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Matt: " The fact that it is possible to stimulate healing reactions is almost completely unknown to modern medicine but actually constitutes an important compliment to action medicine. " " Modern " medicine doesn't know about healing reactions because " modern " medicine doesn't acknowledge the concept of Qi. One can't " know " something until one acknowledges the existence of something. " Modern " medicine is still calling the earth flat. " Action-reaction " seems a misnomer. Your " reaction " comes from Qi stimulation and manipulation. We might as well acknowledge that the earth is round. Regards, Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Hi Alon, Models by definition have limitations. I suppose if one thought ones model was 'it', then understanding another model might jolt one into seeing one's own limitations by contrast. I suppose modelling is just interpretation the data. If it proves to be a useful tool as a road map to get somewhere, great, but it is only the road map and not the journey! Best wishes, [alonmarcus] Monday, 14 March 2005 1:52 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Two Medicines Perhaps our bodies and minds are just the means of having the physical experience. Suppose I used the analogy of a car and driver; if the car goes off the road, we suppose there is a problem with the steering, the physical systems, and miss altogether the driver attached to the steering. >>>>>>I guess one must be open to any of the above possibilities without preconceived ideas. That is the difficult part. We all tend to see what we know and hear what we want to. The discussion of integrative med goes to the heart of such issues. Does one need to understand other models to see the limitations in one's own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 suppose modelling is just interpretation the data. If it proves to be a useful tool as a road map to get somewhere, great, but it is only the road map and not the journey! >>>>>Agreed. My point is however that we tend to use self reinforcing processes. That is if we only know one perspective we will see everything form it and self reinforce our beliefs regardless of data Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Jack stated: " Action-reaction " seems a misnomer. Your " reaction " comes from Qi stimulation and manipulation. Hi Jack, I agree with you that it is all about qi dynamics. I developed the Action vs. Reaction explanation for specific and hopefully constructive reasons that should not be taken as negating or overriding the value of qi models. When a surgeon replaces a leaking heart valve with a pig's valve, that is all about qi also; the qi of the surgeon and surgical procedure, the qi of the patient, even the qi of the pig's valve. My focus in this context is an attempt to classify healing interventions (techniques) so that we can learn better how to recognize their respective strengths and weaknesses. The more clarity we have on strengths and weaknesses, the better we can serve patients individually and the better we can develop public health policy. I find the Action Vs. Reaction model to be more practical than scientific vs. empirical, alternative vs. conventional, etc., because none of those classifications tell you anything about the basic mode of action of any given therapy. I contend that there are essentially only two modes of action; either mechanically taking over for natural healing processes or stimulating/facilitating natural healing processes. I am not adamant about my Action/Reaction terms, maybe there are better terms to describe what I am trying to describe. But I do think the point I am trying to make by classifying healing modes in this way is valid. Below is a list of what I see as the main strengths and weakness of the two medical approaches: ACTION MEDICINE STRENGTHS REACTION MEDICINE STRENGTHS Dramatic results Faster acting Able to save life and limb at critical stages (snatch life out of the jaws of death) Easier to predict therapeutic outcomes Easier to study in cause and effect manner Little or no adverse outcomes Low tech and thus low cost Treats the cause rather than the symptom Often causes additional benefits (good side effects) Able to treat multiple cause disorders Can strengthen integrity of body systems and prevent future illness ACTION MEDICINE WEAKNESSES REACTION MEDICINE WEAKNESSES High rate of difficult to predict side effects including death Often high tech and thus high cost Treats the symptom more than the cause Unable to treat multiple cause disorders Limited ability to prevent future illness, often causing other illness when prevention is attempted More difficult to consistently produce positive outcomes Often slow acting (in chronic problems) Difficult to study in cause and effect manner Usually to weak to save life and limb at critical stages - Jack Sweeney Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:18 PM Re: Two Medicines Matt: " The fact that it is possible to stimulate healing reactions is almost completely unknown to modern medicine but actually constitutes an important compliment to action medicine. " " Modern " medicine doesn't know about healing reactions because " modern " medicine doesn't acknowledge the concept of Qi. One can't " know " something until one acknowledges the existence of something. " Modern " medicine is still calling the earth flat. " Action-reaction " seems a misnomer. Your " reaction " comes from Qi stimulation and manipulation. We might as well acknowledge that the earth is round. Regards, Jack http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you are a TCM academic and wish to discuss TCM with other academics, click on this link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Hi Alon, Yes it is human nature to make the world fit out point of view, we tell ourselves porkies to make it fit, I understand we do this to keep our anxiety levels under control. I recall a healing list, where the person's modality was raw juice diet alone to heal cancer, saw there was never another way to create cure. Her failures, well they just didn't do it right. I even suspect she probably attracted a high number of people for whom her approach worked and perhaps she had really strong intention. This high success rate would reinforce her belief in her rightness. If all you have is a hammer, than all you see are nails. So it seems that we might even share the same perspective here and we are reinforcing our own beliefs together. Is it great to find an external (if not objective) other person, who says we are right... sigh... my anxiety just dropped a couple of degrees...... Best wishes, [alonmarcus] Tuesday, 15 March 2005 2:03 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Two Medicines suppose modelling is just interpretation the data. If it proves to be a useful tool as a road map to get somewhere, great, but it is only the road map and not the journey! >>>>>Agreed. My point is however that we tend to use self reinforcing processes. That is if we only know one perspective we will see everything form it and self reinforce our beliefs regardless of data Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 I tried to send a table in my last reply but it seems it did not come through and the end of this message didn't either (in my In-box anyway). The end of my last message should of read " I contend that there are essentially only two modes of (healing) action; either mechanically taking over for natural healing processes or stimulating/facilitating natural healing processes. I am not adamant about my Action/Reaction terms, maybe there are better terms to describe what I am trying to describe. But I do think the point I am trying to make by classifying healing modes in this way is valid. Below is a list of what I see as the main strengths and weakness of the two medical approaches: Action medicine strengths: Dramatic results, Faster acting, Able to save life and limb at critical stages (snatch life out of the jaws of death), Easier to predict therapeutic outcomes, Easier to study in cause and effect manner. Reaction Medicine strengths: Little or no adverse outcomes, Low tech and thus low cost, Treats the cause rather than the symptom, Often causes additional benefits (good side effects), Able to treat multiple cause disorders, Can strengthen integrity of body systems and prevent future illness. Action Medicine weaknesses: High rate of difficult to predict side effects including death, Often high tech and thus high cost, Treats the symptom more than the cause, Unable to treat multiple cause disorders, Limited ability to prevent future illness, often causing other illness when prevention is attempted. Reaction Medicine weaknesses: More difficult to consistently produce positive outcomes, Often slow acting (in chronic problems), Difficult to study in cause and effect manner, Usually to weak to save life and limb at critical stages. Matthew Bauer - Matt Bauer Chinese Medicine Monday, March 14, 2005 11:32 AM Re: Two Medicines Jack stated: " Action-reaction " seems a misnomer. Your " reaction " comes from Qi stimulation and manipulation. Hi Jack, I agree with you that it is all about qi dynamics. I developed the Action vs. Reaction explanation for specific and hopefully constructive reasons that should not be taken as negating or overriding the value of qi models. When a surgeon replaces a leaking heart valve with a pig's valve, that is all about qi also; the qi of the surgeon and surgical procedure, the qi of the patient, even the qi of the pig's valve. My focus in this context is an attempt to classify healing interventions (techniques) so that we can learn better how to recognize their respective strengths and weaknesses. The more clarity we have on strengths and weaknesses, the better we can serve patients individually and the better we can develop public health policy. I find the Action Vs. Reaction model to be more practical than scientific vs. empirical, alternative vs. conventional, etc., because none of those classifications tell you anything about the basic mode of action of any given therapy. I contend that there a ACTION MEDICINE STRENGTHS REACTION MEDICINE STRENGTHS Dramatic results Faster acting Able to save life and limb at critical stages (snatch life out of the jaws of death) Easier to predict therapeutic outcomes Easier to study in cause and effect manner Little or no adverse outcomes Low tech and thus low cost Treats the cause rather than the symptom Often causes additional benefits (good side effects) Able to treat multiple cause disorders Can strengthen integrity of body systems and prevent future illness ACTION MEDICINE WEAKNESSES REACTION MEDICINE WEAKNESSES High rate of difficult to predict side effects including death Often high tech and thus high cost Treats the symptom more than the cause Unable to treat multiple cause disorders Limited ability to prevent future illness, often causing other illness when prevention is attempted More difficult to consistently produce positive outcomes Often slow acting (in chronic problems) Difficult to study in cause and effect manner Usually to weak to save life and limb at critical stages - Jack Sweeney Chinese Medicine Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:18 PM Re: Two Medicines Matt: " The fact that it is possible to stimulate healing reactions is almost completely unknown to modern medicine but actually constitutes an important compliment to action medicine. " " Modern " medicine doesn't know about healing reactions because " modern " medicine doesn't acknowledge the concept of Qi. One can't " know " something until one acknowledges the existence of something. " Modern " medicine is still calling the earth flat. " Action-reaction " seems a misnomer. Your " reaction " comes from Qi stimulation and manipulation. We might as well acknowledge that the earth is round. Regards, Jack http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. 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.