Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 (edited) Racist. eh?? Clearly you need a lesson in logic. Show me any evidence of this. Typical of this board jumping to conclusions without reading the facts. Edited 11 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I think it is important not to categorise everyone who is in the EDL as racist. Clearly that is not the case and to those who genuinely want to tackle extremist Islam, I would suggest that they are going about it the wrong way (though that does not mean they are automatically racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 eh?? Clearly you need a lesson in logic. Show me any evidence of this. Typical of this board jumping to conclusions without reading the facts. Picking out one word from my response? Why not copy in the rest?? Are you withdrawing my right to an opinion or a view? I really don't expect you to understand but I've proved my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 (edited) Picking out one word from my response? Why not copy in the rest?? Are you withdrawing my right to an opinion or a view? I really don't expect you to understand but I've proved my point. because i replied before you edited it, which simply said racist. obviously edited realising you'd made yourself look s bit of lemon. Edited 11 February, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Ridiculous comment, show me where i have said i support the EDL, other than saying, quite correctly, in this society they are entitled to their view. You have passionately held the fort for the EDL on a couple of threads now. If (as you say) you don't support them, why are you defending them on technicalities? If I stood up and tried every trick in the book to defend Pol Pot or Saddam, anyone sane would assume that I had an agenda, and was either receiving money, or genuinely supported their regimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I think it is important not to categorise everyone who is in the EDL as racist. Clearly that is not the case and to those who genuinely want to tackle extremist Islam, I would suggest that they are going about it the wrong way (though that does not mean they are automatically racist. Those who genuinely want to speak up against extremist Islam should not associate themselves with a racist group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 You have passionately held the fort for the EDL on a couple of threads now. If (as you say) you don't support them, why are you defending them on technicalities? If I stood up and tried every trick in the book to defend Pol Pot or Saddam, anyone sane would assume that I had an agenda, and was either receiving money, or genuinely supported their regimes. Where? I've not "held the fort" i've simply said that given the society that you want with freedom of speech they are entitled to thier view. Right or wrong? Show me where i have said i support them or agree with them, do this and i will aplogise, you wont be able to though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 because i replied before you edited it, obviously realising you'd made yourself look s bit of lemon. Not at all, combination of fat fingers and an iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Not at all, combination of fat fingers and an iPhone. hmmm, so fat fingers and an Iphone made you type one word when you meant to type a few lines did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I am not defending them. You dont seem to be reading my posts properly, read them again. Never once have i said "good on them, take to the streets and smash up a few immigrants while you are at it" Check my posts, i've neither condemned nor condoned them in these posts. It is typical of this board that if you dont outwardly agree with the majority and are not against something the forum superstars are against then you must be for it. I was accused of homophobia because i didn't agree with Elton John adopting a child, now i am being accussed of defending the EDL because i haven't said i dont support them or agree with them. As i said above, i am not particularly interested in what they do, i dont care much for them and are as relevant to me as the student protests. I am not a student so am not currently bothered if they have to pay fees or not, apply the same logic and you'll get my views on the EDL. However like it or not they are entitled to a view given the society we live in, which you lot wanted. Freedom of speech and expression. I am simply making the point that they are entitled to march and have their views as much as any other group in the country. You lot believe this, you lot believe in live and let live, you all said so on this thread. yet when it's something you dont agree with, those morals dont seem to apply. But you are defending them. You haven't said you support them, but this thread would have ended after 6 pages had you not been so pugnacious in your defence of the abhorrent. It's not because you haven't said that you don't support them, it's because you have argued strongly against anyone criticising them. You weren't accused of homophobia 'because i didn't agree with Elton John adopting a child', you were accused of homophobia for making homophobic comments on the subject such as 'not natural' etc. So I return your own words back to you: 'You dont seem to be reading my posts properly, read them again.' We have stated that Freedom of Speech should be upheld - even for extremists like the EDL. We have condemned the student protest violence. The EDL are indeed entitled to march, and all sane citizens of these Isles are entitled to citicise them. We have been nothing but consistent when it comes to morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 So has Elton John joined the EDL? Is David Furnish a neo nazi sympathiser? Is Saturday Night alright for fightin'? Have the blackshirts gone down the yellow brick road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Where? I've not "held the fort" i've simply said that given the society that you want with freedom of speech they are entitled to thier view. Right or wrong? Show me where i have said i support them or agree with them, do this and i will aplogise, you wont be able to though. You have made that point 4 pages ago. You hold the fort every time you continuine to post arguing against anyone who decrys the EDL. You haven't revealed your support for this organisation, but your strong defence of them certainly lends us all to make that assumption. I can only assume that if you don't support the EDL, you might make a few less partizan posts, and condemn them occasionally? Do you condemn them in any shape or form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 But you are defending them. You haven't said you support them, but this thread would have ended after 6 pages had you not been so pugnacious in your defence of the abhorrent. It's not because you haven't said that you don't support them, it's because you have argued strongly against anyone criticising them. You weren't accused of homophobia 'because i didn't agree with Elton John adopting a child', you were accused of homophobia for making homophobic comments on the subject such as 'not natural' etc. So I return your own words back to you: 'You dont seem to be reading my posts properly, read them again.' We have stated that Freedom of Speech should be upheld - even for extremists like the EDL. We have condemned the student protest violence. The EDL are indeed entitled to march, and all sane citizens of these Isles are entitled to citicise them. We have been nothing but consistent when it comes to morality. I am not defending them, i am defending their right to march and to have an opinion and a voice. Where have i defended their actions? Where have i defended their violence? Show me. you wont be able to because i wouldn't and haven't. Given the society that you want, liberal, live and let live, freedom of speech, they are entitled to, correct? And my point about "it not being natural" is correct. Two men cannot produce a baby together, they aren't meant to by nature, right or wrong? so how can it be natural for them to raise one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 hmmm, so fat fingers and an Iphone made you type one word when you meant to type a few lines did it? Yes. Is there a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Yes. Is there a problem with that? You are a strange individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I am not defending them, i am defending their right to march and to have an opinion and a voice. Where have i defended their actions? Where have i defended their violence? Show me. you wont be able to because i wouldn't and haven't. Given the society that you want, liberal, live and let live, freedom of speech, they are entitled to, correct? And my point about "it not being natural" is correct. Two men cannot produce a baby together, they aren't meant to by nature, right or wrong? so how can it be natural for them to raise one? Yes, for the 10th time, the EDL are entitled to march and have freedom of speech (please don't make me type this again - read it this time!). Why are you so passionately defending their right to march (despite it not being under thread from the liberals who support it)? What's your agenda here? Are you trying to out-liberal us? Because the only logically assumption I can make is that you support the EDL, but don't want to be stigmatised on here for admitting to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 You are a strange individual. Constructive as always hypo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Yes, for the 10th time, the EDL are entitled to march and have freedom of speech (please don't make me type this again - read it this time!). Why are you so passionately defending their right to march (despite it not being under thread from the liberals who support it)? What's your agenda here? Are you trying to out-liberal us? Because the only logically assumption I can make is that you support the EDL, but don't want to be stigmatised on here for admitting to it. I've not said i support the EDL. If i do anyway what does it matter? I am allowed to without being stigmatised, you all believe in freedom of speech, do you not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 You are a strange individual. If an oddball calls me strange, does that make me normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I've not said i support the EDL. If i do anyway what does it matter? I am allowed to without being stigmatised, you all believe in freedom of speech, do you not? I know you haven't said whether you support the EDL or not, but given your refusal to condemn their beliefs, and your argent defence of them against any criticism, I have formed my own conclusions. You have the freedom of speech to convince me otherwise. Freedom of Speech doesn't equate freedom from criticism. The two go hand in hand. You have the freedom of speech to tell anyone you wish to whether you support the EDL, but don't expect it to prevent you from being stigmatised. Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing, it gives everyone enough rope, and it's up to you to choose how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Constructive as always hypo. Oh yes because Cato has made a stunningly good contribution to this thread. He has written a load of posts and is still struggling to male his point clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I know you haven't said whether you support the EDL or not, but given your refusal to condemn their beliefs, and your argent defence of them against any criticism, I have formed my own conclusions. You have the freedom of speech to convince me otherwise. Freedom of Speech doesn't equate freedom from criticism. The two go hand in hand. You have the freedom of speech to tell anyone you wish to whether you support the EDL, but don't expect it to prevent you from being stigmatised. Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing, it gives everyone enough rope, and it's up to you to choose how to use it. not very liberal to stigmatise someone for standing up for what they believe in is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 not very liberal to stigmatise someone for standing up for what they believe in is it. I will tolerate everything except intolerance. People bring stigmatism upon themselves for their own words and actions - nothing about being liberal or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12404779 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 not very liberal to stigmatise someone for standing up for what they believe in is it. Turkish, I'd leave it mate, you will not win the argument with these narrow minded liberal thinking individuals. They have a name for everyone who fails to embrace their all new world, they don't see all the crap associated with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Oh yes because Cato has made a stunningly good contribution to this thread. He has written a load of posts and is still struggling to male his point clear. Do you want me to draw you a picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Turkish, I'd leave it mate, you will not win the argument with these narrow minded liberal thinking individuals. They have a name for everyone who fails to embrace their all new world, they don't see all the crap associated with it. Comedy gold, right there. Freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Do you want me to draw you a picture? Constructing a cogent argument would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 I will tolerate everything except intolerance. People bring stigmatism upon themselves for their own words and actions - nothing about being liberal or not. But given your stance of liberalism you should be applauding the actions of the EDL for voicing their beliefs. What they are doesn't matter, what matters is they are making use of their freedom to express their views. You may not agree with what they say, but in a liberal world they should be praised for standing up for their beliefs. Gay activists are, transexuals are, in a liberal society we should cast aside our own views and prejudices and commend these people for making their voices heard. * * JUst to be clear, not saying i agee or support this view point, or it is what i would or should do, it's what liberals should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 (edited) But given your stance of liberalism you should be applauding the actions of the EDL for voicing their beliefs. What they are doesn't matter, what matters is they are making use of their freedom to express their views. You may not agree with what they say, but in a liberal world they should be praised for standing up for their beliefs. Gay activists are, transexuals are, in a liberal society we should cast aside our own views and prejudices and commend these people for making their voices heard. * * JUst to be clear, not saying i agee or support this view point, or it is what i would or should do, it's what liberals should do. You misunderstand liberality, just because we respect the freedoms of the individual to say what they want, doesn't mean we have to respect what they are saying. Nobody should be applauded just for using their right to speak, it's what they say that matters. Edited 11 February, 2011 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Constructing a cogent argument would be a start. What are you unclear on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 And my point about "it not being natural" is correct. Two men cannot produce a baby together, they aren't meant to by nature, right or wrong? so how can it be natural for them to raise one? There are instances with birds where 2 males will rear chicks or a male will help to incubate the eggs of another pair. Mallards in particular are known to form same-sex pairs, especially if there is a shortage of females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 And my point about "it not being natural" is correct. Two men cannot produce a baby together, they aren't meant to by nature, right or wrong? so how can it be natural for them to raise one? It may be 'correct' in the way you mean it - which isn't saying much. Sex isn't only for reproduction, you know. Or haven't you discovered that yet? To other sentients, your statement is pretty meaningless. If by 'natural' you mean 'found in the natural world', there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, including among genetically our nearest relatives, bonobos. They go at it hammer and tongs, regardless of the sex of the partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 What are you unclear on? What you are trying to say. Most of your responses have so far been just a series of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 What you are trying to say. Most of your responses have so far been just a series of questions. Originally Posted by hypochondriac I think it is important not to categorise everyone who is in the EDL as racist. Clearly that is not the case and to those who genuinely want to tackle extremist Islam, I would suggest that they are going about it the wrong way (though that does not mean they are automatically racist. To which I replied: Those who genuinely want to speak up against extremist Islam should not associate themselves with a racist group. Is that really difficult to understand? It must be because I can't see your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Originally Posted by hypochondriac I think it is important not to categorise everyone who is in the EDL as racist. Clearly that is not the case and to those who genuinely want to tackle extremist Islam, I would suggest that they are going about it the wrong way (though that does not mean they are automatically racist. To which I replied: Those who genuinely want to speak up against extremist Islam should not associate themselves with a racist group Is that really difficult to understand? It must be because I can't see your response. I wasn't referring to that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 It may be 'correct' in the way you mean it - which isn't saying much. Sex isn't only for reproduction, you know. Or haven't you discovered that yet? To other sentients, your statement is pretty meaningless. If by 'natural' you mean 'found in the natural world', there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, including among genetically our nearest relatives, bonobos. They go at it hammer and tongs, regardless of the sex of the partner. Ignoring the usual sneering nature of your posts, of which you seem incapable of avoiding when making them, i dont see why it is so difficult for people to understand. If it was natural for men to raise children together then surely they'd be able to produce one. I know that doesn't fit most of your Pc, liberal thinking and i am sure you'll make your usual idiotic sneering reponse but the logic when applied to facts of nature are unarguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 It may be 'correct' in the way you mean it - which isn't saying much. Sex isn't only for reproduction, you know. Or haven't you discovered that yet? To other sentients, your statement is pretty meaningless. If by 'natural' you mean 'found in the natural world', there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, including among genetically our nearest relatives, bonobos. They go at it hammer and tongs, regardless of the sex of the partner. Ooooo Verbal took the sex test on the BBC website. As an aside, whilst driving through Longleat park once, we could see a monkey knocking one out over his mate right next to him. His mate was helping him out too, so I guess it brought the phrase "spanking the monkey" into sharper focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 It may be 'correct' in the way you mean it - which isn't saying much. Sex isn't only for reproduction, you know. Or haven't you discovered that yet? To other sentients, your statement is pretty meaningless. If by 'natural' you mean 'found in the natural world', there are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, including among genetically our nearest relatives, bonobos. They go at it hammer and tongs, regardless of the sex of the partner. Source? (preferably pictorial) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Comedy gold, right there. Freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. Alas, you miss your own hypocrisy here, you think your viewpoint is the only one that counts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 You misunderstand liberality, just because we respect the freedoms of the individual to say what they want, doesn't mean we have to respect what they are saying. Nobody should be applauded just for using their right to speak, it's what they say that matters. As long as they only say what you want to hear, um!, where have I seen that kind of society before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 can we get back to elton john, and what a c*nt he is? That was far more fun than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 As long as they only say what you want to hear, um!, where have I seen that kind of society before? GLT, I've tried making it really simple, but people still don't seem to get it. No, your misunderstanding of what I said has lead you to a completely incorrect conclusion. A liberal who cherishes the freedom of speech is happy for anyone to say anything they want to. However, upholding freedom of speech, does not mean that you agree with, or are precluded from disagreeing with anything that is said. It really isn't that hard to understand. As Voltaire is famously cited as saying 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Ignoring the usual sneering nature of your posts, of which you seem incapable of avoiding when making them, i dont see why it is so difficult for people to understand. If it was natural for men to raise children together then surely they'd be able to produce one. I know that doesn't fit most of your Pc, liberal thinking and i am sure you'll make your usual idiotic sneering reponse but the logic when applied to facts of nature are unarguable. A perfect illustration of your seeming inability to construct a coherent logic. You go from a slippery moral imperative - 'it is not natural from men to raise children together' - to a biological truism - men can't give birth. By inserting the word 'natural' into the first part, you've turned yourself into a complete ditz, your poor head spinning to comprehend how it could be otherwise. What you actually mean is: preferable in your perverse moral universe. So - this is how you should frame your argument: 'In my perverse moral universe, I want all men who propose to raise children jointly with other men burnt at the stake. They could only avoid the punishment of hellfire (aka more posts from you), if they could pull off the biologically impossible feat of giving birth to a baby.' There. I hope that helps. And please take it in the spirit it's intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 (edited) Source? (preferably pictorial) Are you applying rule 1 to homosexual animals copulating? Blimey... Edited 11 February, 2011 by Joensuu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 If it was natural for men to raise children together then surely they'd be able to produce one. If it were natural for men to brest feed, I'm sure they'd have nipples, oh. [NB, have removed the 'sneering' elements before quoting the substance from your post] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Alas, you miss your own hypocrisy here, you think your viewpoint is the only one that counts! No I don't. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 Theres an interesting side-point in what Turks says about whether or not its natural for two men to raise a child, and the subsequent argument. No, its clearly not, but then again its not natural for people to be successfully treated for serious diseases like cancer, or for somebody infertile to have a child via ivf, or for that matter, for loads of people in their nineties to have survived into their nineties. In the 'natural' course of things loads of people are alive today because of unnatural intervention than would otherwise be. I happen to agree that its not ideal for two men to raise a child together, but at the same time the spectre of 'is it natural' is a bit cloudy, I mean is it 'natural' for a human to fly to another continent? Or type something on a forum such as this? We do it because we can and we wish to, if two men want to raise a surrogate child and the law of the land allows it, its a bit hard imho to argue against their right to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February, 2011 A perfect illustration of your seeming inability to construct a coherent logic. You go from a slippery moral imperative - 'it is not natural from men to raise children together' - to a biological truism - men can't give birth. By inserting the word 'natural' into the first part, you've turned yourself into a complete ditz, your poor head spinning to comprehend how it could be otherwise. What you actually mean is: preferable in your perverse moral universe. So - this is how you should frame your argument: 'In my perverse moral universe, I want all men who propose to raise children jointly with other men burnt at the stake. They could only avoid the punishment of hellfire (aka more posts from you), if they could pull off the biologically impossible feat of giving birth to a baby.' There. I hope that helps. And please take it in the spirit it's intended. I actually think you're a little bit mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 11 February, 2011 Share Posted 11 February, 2011 A perfect illustration of your seeming inability to construct a coherent logic. You go from a slippery moral imperative - 'it is not natural from men to raise children together' - to a biological truism - men can't give birth. By inserting the word 'natural' into the first part, you've turned yourself into a complete ditz, your poor head spinning to comprehend how it could be otherwise. What you actually mean is: preferable in your perverse moral universe. So - this is how you should frame your argument: 'In my perverse moral universe, I want all men who propose to raise children jointly with other men burnt at the stake. They could only avoid the punishment of hellfire (aka more posts from you), if they could pull off the biologically impossible feat of giving birth to a baby.' There. I hope that helps. And please take it in the spirit it's intended. good post hes frothing at the mouth and has we all know that men cannot have babies but what a weird thread to start in the first place and why he hates elton i don,t know he sang some great songs. i suppose its all the fault of liberals ,democrats,homos,women and secret agendas haha. bring back family values has cecil parkinson used to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now