Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ability

Rate this topic


Mensch
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Genetics are everything. Virtually all aptitudes, from athletic talent to mathematical ability, are determined by genetics. Extrinsic factors are almost trivial in comparison to intrinsic ones. You absolutely cannot train yourself to do anything well.

Based on what evidence? (I'm asking for every sentence above)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetics are everything. Virtually all aptitudes, from athletic talent to mathematical ability, are determined by genetics. Extrinsic factors are almost trivial in comparison to intrinsic ones. You absolutely cannot train yourself to do anything well.

Unsourced assertion of a surprising fact is best ignored. I have two entire books (at least) to the contrary I could cite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsourced assertion of a surprising fact is best ignored. I have two entire books (at least) to the contrary I could cite.

You don't need evidence on this subject- the fact that ability is determined by genetics is availible to pure inference and can be confirmed by simple observation. I learned this lesson the hard way, having previously tried to compete at things for which I was not genetically suited. Furthermore, mainstream authorities have gone to great lengths to distort the facts on the issue due to uncomfortable racial implications, so do not assume that your books are objective and unbiased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need evidence on this subject- the fact that ability is determined by genetics is availible to pure inference and can be confirmed by simple observation.
Based on pure inference and simple observation, I find it self-evident that genetics plays no role in aptitude. Now that we have that out of the way, do you have one piece of proof (i.e. scientific evidence) that aptitude is genetically determined?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on pure inference and simple observation, I find it self-evident that genetics plays no role in aptitude. Now that we have that out of the way, do you have one piece of proof (i.e. scientific evidence) that aptitude is genetically determined?

I guess that depends on what you consider proof. There are plenty of studies indicating that intelligence has a strong genetic component. The studies on identical twins are particularly compelling. If you mean absolute proof, as in evidence that settles the matter decidedly, then no, I don't have that, and don't need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think certain temperaments/personalities naturally are learners. Einstein isn't the only one who came from an unremarkable background, Da Vinci( The Renaissance Man) came from an unimpressive background as well. The list could go on and on...

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to enounter this degree of antagonism to inference here. I would expect Objectivists to sympathize with the view that published scientific evidence is not prerequite to drawing a conclusion and holding a reasonable belief. Maybe some of you just don't have the background in physiology that I have, or simply haven't considered the issue in as much depth, but it is glaringly obvious to me that aptitude in most or all areas of human ability is primarily determined by genetics. I will write a more detailed argument later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean absolute proof, as in evidence that settles the matter decidedly, then no, I don't have that, and don't need it.
In other words, you've decided that you are persuaded and that you no longer to consider the question? If you mean that you just don't care, that it's not worth your time to use your mind on this question because it won't benefit you an a material way, I suppose I can understand that. On the other hand, if your interest is understanding reality -- existence as it actually is -- and not in maintaining a comfortable facade or supposed knowledge, your refusal to actually look at the facts does not indicate that you believe that man's knowledge should be ever-expanding; that you should maintain an active mind.

This kind of argument from baseless assertion is the antithesis of Objectivist reasoning. A rational man with present the actually perceptually axiomatic and his logic. You should never expect Objectivists to consider an arbitrary claim to be above challenge, and your assertion is arbitrary. It is your responsibility to prove your claim, and if you cannot in fact prove it, you should not make the claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you've decided that you are persuaded and that you no longer to consider the question? If you mean that you just don't care, that it's not worth your time to use your mind on this question because it won't benefit you an a material way, I suppose I can understand that. On the other hand, if your interest is understanding reality -- existence as it actually is -- and not in maintaining a comfortable facade or supposed knowledge, your refusal to actually look at the facts does not indicate that you believe that man's knowledge should be ever-expanding; that you should maintain an active mind.

This kind of argument from baseless assertion is the antithesis of Objectivist reasoning. A rational man with present the actually perceptually axiomatic and his logic. You should never expect Objectivists to consider an arbitrary claim to be above challenge, and your assertion is arbitrary. It is your responsibility to prove your claim, and if you cannot in fact prove it, you should not make the claim.

I neither consider the claim above challenge nor expect Objectivists to accept is as such. What I reject is the idea that firm scientific evidence is prerequisite to making such a claim. I think the answer can be derived with near certainty from existing physiological knowledge combined with logical inference. I have not submitted a detailed argument yet because it will take a long time to type and I am supposed to be studying right now.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer can be derived with near certainty from existing physiological knowledge combined with logical inference.

I do as well, except my conclusion is the opposite, that genes play very little ultimate effect on ability. It is glaringly obvious to me that the vast majority of ability normally attributed to some kind of innate or natural advnatage is more properly attributed to the correct kind of training and practice, skills acquired as a corollary to other behavior, or skills acquired and compounded from a young age from seemingly unrelated behavior. Coupled with the fact that our choices can actually alter our expressed genetic code (research epi-genetics) and the philosophical bias popular in modern science toward materialistic determinism, the result is to glorify irrationally the deterministic and reject irrationally the volitional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having previously tried to compete at things for which I was not genetically suited

Perhaps you trained poorly, or incorrectly, or not at all. Learning to play chess, for example, by randomly moving chess pieces in random manners, is not very productive. Learning to play by studying strategy, rules, etc, is. A person such as yourself might very well look at two individuals, one who spent decades learning the poor nearly random way, and the other who spent days learning the strategic, intelligent way, and conclude that one is 'genetically' gifted for chess, the other not.

The best speed rock climber in the world today did not become so because she was genetically gifted, but because as a young girl she played with spider monkeys in trees in Africa, altering her physiological structure because of choices she made, for the rest of her life.

Similarly engaging in particular activities at a young age, especially during the years of mental and physiological development, can have drastic consequences on your subsequent ability in many other things. A slightly better performance or training, at 1 or 2%, something below the threshold or perceptibility, can compound over years into huge differences with no apparent cause. These and many other objections to the outright attribution of ability to genes have been discussed throughout this thread, I suggest you review them.

While there is indeed an egalitarianism philosophical bias to downplay individual ability as a product of genes, there is a anti-individualistic and material deterministic bias to down play the role of choice in variations in ability, the latter being the mainstream scientific bias and the former the old school bias from the days of eugenics. Your generalizations and hand waving are not compelling arguments.

The popular debate in science today, after all, on human behavior is not between volitional consciousness and determinism, but between "Nature vs Nurture" (i.e., which brand of determinism more strongly pre-determines your behavior) "choice" is conspicuously absent from consideration.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best speed rock climber in the world today did not become so because she was genetically gifted, but because as a young girl she played with spider monkeys in trees in Africa, altering her physiological structure because of choices she made, for the rest of her life.

You are in error. The most important anatomic and physiologic characteristics influencing athletic ability are not subject to change through training of any kind. Skeletal proprtions, muscle length, insertion points, muscle fiber composition and neurological efficiency are all utterly determined by genetics. We know this because athletes, coaches and scientists have observed for years that such traits do not respond to training. The more likely scenario is that your climber was attracted to related activities from a young age due to genetic predisposition. Her childhood activities did not alter her physiology because that is simply impossible.

I spent half my life on a track. As a teenager I was totally committed to the goal of becoming a professional runner. I was far more dedicated than anyone else I knew, and I even became more knowledgable about training than my coach who had been coaching for 30 years. Yet, my ability was mediocre, and I regularly lost to kids who were more concerned with smoking pot and drinking beer than training. The most successful sprinters were the ones who were the least committed and had the worst attitudes in general; they were accustomed to getting success without working hard because they were genetically gifted. The whole time I was intellectually aware that sprinting ability is determined by genetics, and that I did not posses the correct genetics, but I refused to accept the fact and kept trying anyway in the desperate hope that I would somehow be miraculously rewarderded for my commitment. That reward never came, and I pissed away a good chunk of my life trying to accomplish the impossible. Looking back, I regret it very much, beause if I had put the same energy that I put into running into something else, something that I had the genetic ability to succeed at, like working and making money, then I might have created a much better life for myself by now.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent half my life on a track. As a teenager I was totally committed to the goal of becoming a professional runner. I was far more dedicated than anyone else I knew, and I even became more knowledgable about training than my coach who had been coaching for 30 years. Yet, my ability was mediocre, and I regularly lost to kids who were more concerned with smoking pot and drinking beer than training.

Running is the athletic activity with the least possible amount of actual skill involved. Great example you've got there. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running is the athletic activity with the least possible amount of actual skill involved. Great example you've got there. :rolleyes:

Or the most amount of skill, depending on how you define the term.

Running is one of the purest forms of physicality. That is precisely why it so beautifully illustrates the importance of genetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are in error. The most important anatomic and physiologic characteristics influencing athletic ability are not subject to change through training of any kind. Skeletal proprtions, muscle length, insertion points, muscle fiber composition and neurological efficiency are all utterly determined by genetics.

Unfortunately you are the one in error, my previously cited example of the young climbing girl clearly demonstrates that, for instance, skeletal proportions are not *entirely* genetically predisposed. Not only are they influenced by nutritional factors during growth, but also stresses during growth and development. I suggest you actually examine such claims before you so confidently assert their validity when you are utterly wrong. The young girl in question has an arm and finger length that exceeds all but the smallest minority of humans, neither of these did she inherit from her parents or anyone in her lineage, but instead came directly from the stresses of climbing while she was growing as a young girl applied to her body. Muscle length is similarly effected, and muscle fiber composition (fast twitch vs slow twitch) is still hotly debated, current evidence suggests that the ultimate configuration is predetermined, but a large portion of muscle fibers in any individual can change from one to the other depending on the type of exercises applied to them. Science does not back up your claim which is apparently born of a very cursory knowledge of physiology.

We know this because athletes, coaches and scientists have observed for years that such traits do not respond to training.

A few minutes in google scholar can do wonders

On muscle fiber types:

A calcineurin-dependent transcriptional pathway controls skeletal muscle fiber type

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/16/2499.abstract

Slow- and fast-twitch myofibers of adult skeletal muscles express unique sets of muscle-specific genes, and these distinctive programs of gene expression
are controlled by variations in motor neuron activity
. It is well established that, as a consequence of more frequent neural stimulation, slow fibers maintain higher levels of intracellular free calcium than fast fibers, but the mechanisms by which calcium may function as a messenger linking nerve activity to changes in gene expression in skeletal muscle have been unknown. Here, fiber-type-specific gene expression in skeletal muscles is shown to be controlled by a signaling pathway that involves calcineurin, a cyclosporin-sensitive, calcium-regulated serine/threonine phosphatase.
Activation of calcineurin in skeletal myocytes selectively up-regulates slow-fiber-specific gene promoters
. Conversely, inhibition of calcineurin activity by administration of cyclosporin A to intact animals
promotes slow-to-fast fiber transformation
. Transcriptional activation of slow-fiber-specific transcription appears to be mediated by a combinatorial mechanism involving proteins of the NFAT and MEF2 families.
These results identify a molecular mechanism by which different patterns of motor nerve activity promote selective changes in gene expression to establish the specialized characteristics of slow and fast myofibers

On skeletal development

Growth and development: hereditary and mechanical modulations

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...889540604001908

Growth and development is the net result of environmental modulation of genetic inheritance
. Mesenchymal cells differentiate into chondrogenic, osteogenic, and fibrogenic cells: the first 2 are chiefly responsible for endochondral ossification, and the last 2 for sutural growth. Cells are influenced by genes and environmental cues to migrate, proliferate, differentiate, and synthesize extracellular matrix in specific directions and magnitudes, ultimately resulting in macroscopic shapes such as the nose and the chin.
Mechanical forces, the most studied environmental cues, readily modulate bone and cartilage growth
. Recent experimental evidence demonstrates that cyclic forces evoke greater anabolic responses of not only craniofacial sutures, but also cranial base cartilage.
Mechanical forces are transmitted as tissue-borne and cell-borne mechanical strain that in turn regulates gene expression, cell proliferation, differentiation, maturation, and matrix synthesis, the totality of which is growth and development.
Thus, hereditary and mechanical modulations of growth and development share a common pathway via genes. Combined approaches using genetics, bioengineering, and quantitative biology are expected to bring new insight into growth and development, and might lead to innovative therapies for craniofacial skeletal dysplasia including malocclusion, dentofacial deformities, and craniofacial anomalies such as cleft palate and craniosynostosis, as well as disorders associated with the temporomandibular joint.

Since you asserted none of these changes 'such as muscle fiber composition' are subject to change, and are "utterly determined by genetics" and I have easily shown otherwise, I hope this is enough for you to realize your assessment is incorrect and to re-examine your stance. Unless by 'determined by genetics' you simple mean we have bones and muscles made up of particular material, the stresses applied to bones and muscles during growth and development do have a significant effect, and stresses applied even after that period still have major effects.

The more likely scenario is that your climber was attracted to related activities from a young age due to genetic predisposition. Her childhood activities did not alter her physiology because that is simply impossible.

She had a gene for liking to climb trees? uh huh. I suppose she had a genetic predisposition to liking spider monkeys as well, and not, say, sloths. The more likely explanation is that you are incorrect and unable to admit it.

I spent half my life on a track. As a teenager I was totally committed to the goal of becoming a professional runner. I was far more dedicated than anyone else I knew, and I even became more knowledgeable about training than my coach who had been coaching for 30 years. Yet, my ability was mediocre, and I regularly lost to kids who were more concerned with smoking pot and drinking beer than training. The most successful sprinters were the ones who were the least committed and had the worst attitudes in general; they were accustomed to getting success without working hard because they were genetically gifted. The whole time I was intellectually aware that sprinting ability is determined by genetics, and that I did not posses the correct genetics, but I refused to accept the fact and kept trying anyway in the desperate hope that I would somehow be miraculously rewarderded for my commitment. That reward never came, and I pissed away a good chunk of my life trying to accomplish the impossible. Looking back, I regret it very much, beause if I had put the same energy that I put into running into something else, something that I had the genetic ability to succeed at, like working and making money, then I might have created a much better life for myself by now.

Ah, I see now, you single anecdotal story completely disproves legions of studies. It also conveniently excuses you of failure. Perhaps those other runners ran more as younger children. Perhaps they practiced smarter than you (and not just more) perhaps the way you trained was wrong and actually made it worse for you. You error is that upon observing differences in ability, and upon being unable to with a few minutes of thought identify an explicit cause for that difference, you automatically attribute it to genetic pre-determinism. And yet, our genome differs very little across individuals, the vast majority of beneficial mutations would have permeated the vast majority of humans during the 200,000 years which we were subjected to immense selective pressures, and not the last 200 year where we have not been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I regret to inform you that your dissertation constitutes an outright molestation of exercise physiology. Reading that post was like watching Hillary Clinton talk about the economy. It is so bad that I am now considering giving up on the idea of man as a heroic being.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I regret to inform you that your dissertation constitutes an outright molestation of exercise physiology. Reading that post was like watching Hillary Clinton talk about the economy. It is so bad that I am now considering giving up on the idea of man as a heroic being.

That's your argument?

I'm not persuaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you are the one in error, my previously cited example of the young climbing girl clearly demonstrates that, for instance, skeletal proportions are not *entirely* genetically predisposed. Not only are they influenced by nutritional factors during growth, but also stresses during growth and development. I suggest you actually examine such claims before you so confidently assert their validity when you are utterly wrong. The young girl in question has an arm and finger length that exceeds all but the smallest minority of humans, neither of these did she inherit from her parents or anyone in her lineage, but instead came directly from the stresses of climbing while she was growing as a young girl applied to her body. Muscle length is similarly effected, and muscle fiber composition (fast twitch vs slow twitch) is still hotly debated, current evidence suggests that the ultimate configuration is predetermined, but a large portion of muscle fibers in any individual can change from one to the other depending on the type of exercises applied to them. Science does not back up your claim which is apparently born of a very cursory knowledge of physiology.

A few minutes in google scholar can do wonders

On muscle fiber types:

A calcineurin-dependent transcriptional pathway controls skeletal muscle fiber type

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/16/2499.abstract

Slow- and fast-twitch myofibers of adult skeletal muscles express unique sets of muscle-specific genes, and these distinctive programs of gene expression
are controlled by variations in motor neuron activity
. It is well established that, as a consequence of more frequent neural stimulation, slow fibers maintain higher levels of intracellular free calcium than fast fibers, but the mechanisms by which calcium may function as a messenger linking nerve activity to changes in gene expression in skeletal muscle have been unknown. Here, fiber-type-specific gene expression in skeletal muscles is shown to be controlled by a signaling pathway that involves calcineurin, a cyclosporin-sensitive, calcium-regulated serine/threonine phosphatase.
Activation of calcineurin in skeletal myocytes selectively up-regulates slow-fiber-specific gene promoters
. Conversely, inhibition of calcineurin activity by administration of cyclosporin A to intact animals
promotes slow-to-fast fiber transformation
. Transcriptional activation of slow-fiber-specific transcription appears to be mediated by a combinatorial mechanism involving proteins of the NFAT and MEF2 families.
These results identify a molecular mechanism by which different patterns of motor nerve activity promote selective changes in gene expression to establish the specialized characteristics of slow and fast myofibers

On skeletal development

Growth and development: hereditary and mechanical modulations

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...889540604001908

Growth and development is the net result of environmental modulation of genetic inheritance
. Mesenchymal cells differentiate into chondrogenic, osteogenic, and fibrogenic cells: the first 2 are chiefly responsible for endochondral ossification, and the last 2 for sutural growth. Cells are influenced by genes and environmental cues to migrate, proliferate, differentiate, and synthesize extracellular matrix in specific directions and magnitudes, ultimately resulting in macroscopic shapes such as the nose and the chin.
Mechanical forces, the most studied environmental cues, readily modulate bone and cartilage growth
. Recent experimental evidence demonstrates that cyclic forces evoke greater anabolic responses of not only craniofacial sutures, but also cranial base cartilage.
Mechanical forces are transmitted as tissue-borne and cell-borne mechanical strain that in turn regulates gene expression, cell proliferation, differentiation, maturation, and matrix synthesis, the totality of which is growth and development.
Thus, hereditary and mechanical modulations of growth and development share a common pathway via genes. Combined approaches using genetics, bioengineering, and quantitative biology are expected to bring new insight into growth and development, and might lead to innovative therapies for craniofacial skeletal dysplasia including malocclusion, dentofacial deformities, and craniofacial anomalies such as cleft palate and craniosynostosis, as well as disorders associated with the temporomandibular joint.

Since you asserted none of these changes 'such as muscle fiber composition' are subject to change, and are "utterly determined by genetics" and I have easily shown otherwise, I hope this is enough for you to realize your assessment is incorrect and to re-examine your stance. Unless by 'determined by genetics' you simple mean we have bones and muscles made up of particular material, the stresses applied to bones and muscles during growth and development do have a significant effect, and stresses applied even after that period still have major effects.

She had a gene for liking to climb trees? uh huh. I suppose she had a genetic predisposition to liking spider monkeys as well, and not, say, sloths. The more likely explanation is that you are incorrect and unable to admit it.

Ah, I see now, you single anecdotal story completely disproves legions of studies. It also conveniently excuses you of failure. Perhaps those other runners ran more as younger children. Perhaps they practiced smarter than you (and not just more) perhaps the way you trained was wrong and actually made it worse for you. You error is that upon observing differences in ability, and upon being unable to with a few minutes of thought identify an explicit cause for that difference, you automatically attribute it to genetic pre-determinism. And yet, our genome differs very little across individuals, the vast majority of beneficial mutations would have permeated the vast majority of humans during the 200,000 years which we were subjected to immense selective pressures, and not the last 200 year where we have not been.

I believe you would find it impossible to prove that exercise during childhood can affect the final limb length to the degree that your argument implies. It is true that a certain amount of mechanical stress is required for normal skeletal development, and that the absence of such stress can result in arrested growth or atrophy, but exercise cannot actually lengthen the bones as to cause just any child to develop extremely long limbs. Such unusual characteristics can only be attibutable to genetics. Futhermore, exercise primarily effects bone mineral density rather than longitudinal growth, so the entire discussion is almost moot.

The statement that "she has a gene for liking to climb trees" is actually a rather serious misuse of language, and those words would never come out of my mouth, but I stand by the claim that the girl's affinity for climbing was the result of genetic disposition. She liked climbing because she was good at the activity, and she was good at it because she was born with favorable genetics.

Your discussion of muscle fibers neither proves your thesis nor disproves mine. The research you cite does not actually demonstrate that physical training of any kind can cause the conversion of muscle fiber types. Instead, it shows that conversion is possible through molecular manipulation under laboratory conditions, a fact which I became aware of 10 years ago as a teenager when I was so desperate to succeed at track that I would have engineered myself into a world-class sprinter if it was possible. The fact that scientists have to resort to such heroic measures to manipulate fiber types is actually a compelling argument that, for practical purposes, fiber type is primarily determined by genetics.

I correctly attribute my failure in track to genetics because I am objective and honest enough to admit that I simply don't have much ability in that deparment despite the fact that it's a very painful admission for me to make. Now, the suggestion that other athletes simply trained smarter than me is simply laughtable; track and field training is still utterly in the stone ages, and most successful track athletes succeed in spite of their training rather than because of it. Usain Bolt ate a meal of chicken mcnuggets a few minutes before he obliterated the 100m world record at the Olympics. And while I'm on the subject of world-class sprinting, it's interesting to note that athletes of west African descent dominate sprinting events, and that the fastest sprinters from EVERY continent are black. This would suggest that blacks possess unique physical characteristics which make them well-suited for sprinting; traits which can only be attributable to genetics. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, you should believe that certain environments favor faster runners, and that such environments will therefore produce organisms with genetics that are favorable for running. It should therefore follow that one's potential to run fast is primarily determined by genetics rather than training. And once you make that intellectual breakthough, you will be well on your way toward understanding why virtually all human apitudes are determined by genetics.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should like to join this debate.

This is an interesting topic, because until this time, the idea of "genetic ability" by me has been grossly misunderstood. However, as I currently do not have the time to read all of the replies, I should like to simply quote myself from another post

"I think that this is the subject of another debate, for I do believe that to a certain extent a man's mind has a physical process. Or in other words, a man with a greater forehead has more potential that a man without, though whether or not he utilizes his potential is a matter of his own volition. Man's mind, like his body, has physical limits, too, and as such certain men are geniuses and certain men are not. Not everyone is a Salvador Dali, Shakespeare, or Mentzer, for that matter..."

I think that there is much to be said with regards to one's interests. And I also do think that with regards to this, the degree to which a man may pursue his pleasure is the degree to which his mind is predisposed to competence in any given endeavour. To prove this, I point to the simple illustration of a basketball player. What is a professional basketball player? The answer is that professional basketball player is a man who has a poet's passion for basketball. What is professional basketball player? It is a black man whos merits from his race have given him the ability to jump higher than other men (for the most part, there are exceptions). What is a professional basketball player? It is, in essence, a man who possesses both desire and innate ability.

I think that upon this point one may ponder the reason of men's interests, that being that the reason of this is a combination of both their wit and will, both their wisdom and talent. The root motivation for a man who says that you are "so gifted" or are "so talented", though he himself may not understand it, is simply out of genuine benevolence. What I mean by this is that he truly admires your work and your passion for it, though most men have automated their evasions to such a level that they do not even think any other mode of thought possible. Such is the reason for this. I, personally, could not pursue my life's passion as a bodybuilder, for my genetics simply prescribe that the degree to which I may enjoy bodybuilding is limited, because it is with much difficulty that my body gains mass. For more on this subject, I refer you to Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty: Mind and Body (I think that is what it is called, it has been so long since I read it)

I think that this proves an adequate point, and I will go back and read your posts to see if anyone has yet said this.

Sincerely,

-Marcus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...