Make Way for the New Jersey Thought Police! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 18 Old 09-22-2012, 08:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)

This issue has popped up already in the vax forum, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

 

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/09/21/parents-troubled-by-bill-to-tighten-up-immunization-exemptions/

 

 

Quote:

Required documentation under the legislation includes a notarized written statement that:

  • outlines the religious tenet or practice and explains the conflict;

  • makes clear that the objection is not solely a political or philosophical belief or related to concerns about vaccine safety;

  • and shows that the student or parents understand “the risks and benefits of vaccination to the student and the public health,” vouched for by a signed statement from a physician saying that the student has been informed of the risk.

 

 

  •  

 

Quote:

Habakus, co-editor of The Vaccine Epidemic (Skyhorse Publishing, 2011), told the committee that the rules would impose a financial cost on religious parents, while forcing them to jump through an unnecessary set of hoops. More problematic, she said, was placing public officials and doctors in the “role of religious inquisitors.”

“You are telling them they have to deem who is religiously sincere enough,” she said.

 

So it's pretty easy.  You just have to explain and justify your intimate, conscientiously held beliefs to doctors and State officials who reserve the right to approve or reject them. What's not to like?  thumb.gif winky.gif


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 18 Old 09-22-2012, 09:15 AM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So disturbing.  Big Pharma indeed holds a lot of influence in my home state.


A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#3 of 18 Old 09-23-2012, 12:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
You know, at the risk of offending someone with my politics, I'm a far cry from a Republican. That's why it frustrates me when it seems that--not always, but more often than not--it's the Democrats who work so hard to curtail our fundamental right to informed consent/refusal and sick the Mommy-Daddy State on us. Democrats introduced the bills in CA and VT. It was usually the Democrats who fought so hard against allowing midwives in my state to get licensed based on the homebirth-is-dangerous meme and the perception that they had to save us women from ourselves. eyesroll.gif And now it's the Democrats in NJ who are embracing this fanatical push for forced injections.

I'm getting ready to strike a Faustian bargain with the Republican party. Fine. I'll vote for you all. Go ahead and send the economy to hell. Just keep the State's hands off my children. irked.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#4 of 18 Old 09-23-2012, 03:23 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

This is what I think (as an outsider):

 

The Republicans do not believe in the state interfering in peoples lives.  This means no social programs (blech!) but it also means they do not interfere overly in individual choices, such as vaccines.  They believe parents should make choices for their children.

 

OTOH, Democrats do interfere in peoples lives (which is good for social spending) but they also interfere with parental choices.

 

This plays out in many societies - Quebec (IMHO) is one of the most liberal and socially conscious provinces; they are also the most Big Brother-y of the provinces.  

 

Good luck figuring out who to vote for!


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#5 of 18 Old 09-23-2012, 04:21 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)

Both sides are well-funded by the pharmaceutical industry.  So, in the long run, it won't matter. Each side will push forced vaccination. Look at Texas Governer Rick Perry's track record; he attempted to MANDATE Gardasil for ALL 12-year-old girls.

 

Under Obamacare, your child can't be denied health insurance for a pre-existing condition ).  But their rates can be raised through the roof for that pre-existing condition.

 

Under the Republicans,the health insurance industry will have nobody to answer to. A vaccine reaction becomes a pre-existing condition (and therefore uninsurable) if it happens the day before you try to sign up with a new health insurer.

 

Under the Democrats, parents will have no rights.

 

I have no idea how to choose the lesser of these two evils.

Taximom5 is offline  
#6 of 18 Old 09-23-2012, 05:06 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

Taximom is right.

 

If you choose to vote this year, find a candidate who is not the lesser of any evil. Don't settle for anything less. If there is no acceptable candidate on the ballot, then write in the name of the person who deserves the job. (Gerald Celente would make a good president! love.gif)

Neither Romney or Obama will get my vote. I don't like either one.


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#7 of 18 Old 09-24-2012, 02:21 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)

And yet the UK is quite socialist by US standards, but vaccinations are not mandatory and no exemptions are required to send your children to publicly funded school if they are not up-to-date with vaccination. Interesting....


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#8 of 18 Old 09-24-2012, 05:07 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And yet the UK is quite socialist by US standards, but vaccinations are not mandatory and no exemptions are required to send your children to publicly funded school if they are not up-to-date with vaccination. Interesting....

Here, too.  Some provinces have exemptions but they are very easy to get.

 

None the less - my critique in general stands, democrats tend to be statists (exceptions apply) and Rebuplicans are more about individuals (exceptions apply)

 

http://www.svgop.com/files/Differences%20Between%20Republicans%20and%20Democrats.pdf

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

 

The second link claims Democrats see social and human ideas as based on based on "community and social responsibility" whereas the Republican see it as based on "individual rights and justice."

 

I don't really know if socialism is correlated to less individuals freedoms in general on an international scale  (I suspect it does on some scale); I guess in some ways it does not matter, the OP and Americans have to figure out who to vote for in their country  - and if/how the various parties stances on vaccine issues plays into who to vote for.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#9 of 18 Old 09-24-2012, 06:31 AM
 
AmandaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The second link claims Democrats see social and human ideas as based on based on "community and social responsibility" whereas the Republican see it as based on "individual rights and justice."

Republicans see it as based on "men's individual rights and justice" 

 

bolding mind. Republicans completely disregard individual rights when it comes to reproductive rights for women. 

Devaskyla, Bokonon and kathymuggle like this.

lactivist.gifnovaxnocirc.gif Acd.gif'ing, winner.jpg,familybed1.gif,femalesling.GIFread.gif Momma to one DD 1/1/12 ribboncesarean.gif. Trying to goorganic.jpg and hoping for a hbac.gif next time!

AmandaT is offline  
#10 of 18 Old 09-24-2012, 07:06 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

There is also the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. The libertarian party really, REALLY doesn't want to intrude on personal lives/personal choices. Check out their platform. Ron Paul was my candidate... may still write him in. Someone mentioned voting for the lesser of two evils. How about voting for NO evil. There is more out there than republican or democrat. You hardly ever hear about the "other" parties because the MSM is extremely biased and controlled by the two major parties.

BeckyBird and Bokonon like this.

Newly married 10/2013 to DH superhero.gifSAHM to DD 2007  dust.gif and DS 2010  bouncy.gif  homeschool.gifselectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gifnocirc.gifhamster.jpg
erinmattsmom88 is offline  
#11 of 18 Old 09-26-2012, 02:07 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The Republicans do not believe in the state interfering in peoples lives.  This means no social programs (blech!) but it also means they do not interfere overly in individual choices, such as vaccines.  They believe parents should make choices for their children.

 

 

 

Well, in theory.  In practice, both parties are prone to interfering in people's lives, just by different means. 

 

Anit-circ and anti-spanking movements are more likely to come from Democrats than Republicans, though many who support them would consider themselves far to the left of the democratic party.  While Democrats tend to be less supportive of big business and so more likely to be supportive of laws forcing the big pharma companies to prove their products are safe, the strong science arm of the party is also likely to pass restrictions on natural remedies, for instance not allowing claims on labels of herbal remedies that do not have strong studies baking them up (I.E. you can's say your fish oil capsules cure depression without scientific evidence showing it is so, no matter how strongly you believe it).  This can be seen as limiting health options so interfering in individual choice.  On the other hand, there is a strong naturally oriented arm to the democrats as well, which along with a push for tolerance for other ways of doing things including non-Western medicine will push for making it easier for a wider diversity of medicines/medical modalities.  It is a party divided in many respects.  Oh, democrats are also more likely to be behind requiring warning labels and banning certain chemicals and pesticides and such, and for requiring recycling programs and air quality controls and such which may be seen a as a limit on freedom.  

 

Republicans do not believe in interring in people's right to make money (so long as it is not by some immoral means such as selling sex toys, but requiring big agriculture companies to pass food safety inspections is limiting freedom and harmful to business/economy!)  Okay, here is the part where I should admit my own bias that I always vote Democrat, and really am to the left of the party average, so you can guess my view of the Republican party in general (though not of individuals who vote Republican, as there are many reasons why they may do so).  But as far as personal freedom?  Well, they want to protect the freedom to live by Christian values (as they see them, anyway) at least, to the point of inflicting those Christian values on those who don't want them through prayer in school and Christmas trees in government buildings.  But they want to put restrictions on what consenting adults may do in their own bedrooms and who they may do it with, on what gender you may marry and what makes a family, on your ability to raise children in religions other than their brand of Christianity, restrict you from choosing to do pot or other recreational drugs (aside from alcohol or cigarettes, those are fine and your right to choose no matter how harmful to yourself/society!), restrict a woman's choice as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and so on and so on and so on. 

 

So on the whole, my personal take on things,clouded by my own views and such, is that the Republicans are far more interfering in people's lives than Democrats.  Whether you agree with the restriction or not, it is still a restriction.  Restricting an individuals right to walk up and punch another individual in the face is certainly a restriction in individual freedom that I believe we all support (most of the time anyway).  

 

Where that comes out in vaccines?  I'm not really sure.   On one hand, I can see Democrats being more restrictive on the basis for benefit to society, but on the other I can see them being less so due to the push of individual freedom of choice and bodily integrity and also the strong natural movement and anti-chemical/anti-big pharma push.  and it would be interesting to take a look back at who is pushing for which laws/restrictions at both a state and federal level.

 

My province (um... in case I'm confusing anyone, I'm US citizen and a permanent resident of Canada) provides vaccinations for school-age children in the schools, but if I didn't want them, I'd just not sign the form, no need to claim I belong to a religion that doesn't vaccinate or even state my reasons at all.  I do find it interesting that more socialist nations with government funded health care, which you would think would have the most invested in preventing disease in order to keep healthcare costs/treatment down) have so much less stringent requirements for vaccines in general than the US with private insurance companies (although, I guess those insurance companies are a big political push for vaccines since having to treat vaccine preventable disease would cost them) and touting freedom above all else is the one to limit the parental choice in this matter.  

pers is online now  
#12 of 18 Old 09-27-2012, 02:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

My province (um... in case I'm confusing anyone, I'm US citizen and a permanent resident of Canada) provides vaccinations for school-age children in the schools, but if I didn't want them, I'd just not sign the form, no need to claim I belong to a religion that doesn't vaccinate or even state my reasons at all.  I do find it interesting that more socialist nations with government funded health care, which you would think would have the most invested in preventing disease in order to keep healthcare costs/treatment down) have so much less stringent requirements for vaccines in general than the US with private insurance companies (although, I guess those insurance companies are a big political push for vaccines since having to treat vaccine preventable disease would cost them) and touting freedom above all else is the one to limit the parental choice in this matter.  

A single-payer system simply involves the insurance process being part of the public sector instead of the private, so I'd think that single-payer countries would have the same cost-cutting considerations as private insurance companies.  But are vaccine-avoidable diseases--measles, for example-- significantly more rampant in Canada (and other single-payer nations without compulsory vaccination) than in the U.S.?  That's not a rhetorical question, by they way.  I'm genuinely curious...   

 

ETA: Point well taken on Rick Perry.


In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#13 of 18 Old 09-28-2012, 08:24 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

But are vaccine-avoidable diseases--measles, for example-- significantly more rampant in Canada (and other single-payer nations without compulsory vaccination) than in the U.S.?  That's not a rhetorical question, by they way.  I'm genuinely curious...   

 

 

I think measles and measles vaccination rates in most of Canada are fairly similar to in the US.  Despite not being mandatory in most provinces, exluding Quebec the measles vaccination rate may even be slightly higher in Canada than the US average (maybe still is even leaving Quebec in).  Measles was very rare in the early part of the last decade, only around ten or so cases a year, then like in the US, the last few years have had some largish outbreaks of around a hundred or so per year for a few years.  The worst by far has been in Quebec, which has a lower measles vaccination rate than the rest of Canada and had a huge large outbreak of over 700 cases last year (no fataltities, thankfully, but a lot of hospitalizations).  

 

Some vaccines are mandatory in France; I have no idea what exemptions one can get there.  Either measles is not one of the mandatory ones, or if it is, it must be easy to get around that/get an exemption as measles vaccine rate is relatively low in France.  They've had some an outbreak going on for a few years, reaching it's worst last year with thousands of cases and a half-dozen or so deaths.  Measles has also been on the rise in the UK since vaccination rates fell following Wakefields report, and measles is more common there than in the US & Canada as well.  

 

I don't know about other diseases.  Measles is just the one that has been making the news in recent years.  

pers is online now  
#14 of 18 Old 09-29-2012, 07:57 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

Pers - do you have a source for the statement that Quebec has a lower measles vaccination rate than the rest of Canada?

 

I went looking but could not find one. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#15 of 18 Old 10-01-2012, 02:06 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Pers - do you have a source for the statement that Quebec has a lower measles vaccination rate than the rest of Canada?

 

I went looking but could not find one. 

 

 

No, I don't.  Sorry, I should be more careful to double check. 

 

It was something I read that stuck in my brain a year or so ago in the middle of the huge outbreak that said lower vaccine rates were the reason it was so much worse there than in the rest of Canada or the US, but now I can't remember for sure if it was lower vaccine rates for Quebec as a whole or if it was just certain communities/pockets in Quebec with very low vax rates, and I can't find it again.  

pers is online now  
#16 of 18 Old 10-01-2012, 04:20 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

 

No, I don't.  Sorry, I should be more careful to double check. 

 

It was something I read that stuck in my brain a year or so ago in the middle of the huge outbreak that said lower vaccine rates were the reason it was so much worse there than in the rest of Canada or the US, but now I can't remember for sure if it was lower vaccine rates for Quebec as a whole or if it was just certain communities/pockets in Quebec with very low vax rates, and I can't find it again.  

That's Ok.

 

I did spend a bit of time trying to get vaccination rates per province (and preferably per VPD) and did not get very far.

 

It looks like we might not even have a national reporting of statistics.  This is old - but it might still be correct http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/05vol31/dr3109a-eng.php

 

"Currently, there are no national standards for the reporting of immunization coverage in Canada. Comparison of coverage rates among jurisdictions and aggregation of jurisdictional estimates for national reporting are challenged by i) a lack of regular and consistent data collection, ii) differences in coverage assessment methods, iii) a lack of standardized reporting definitions, and iv) heterogeneity among jurisdictional immunization schedules."

 

Fwiw, one reason I read that Quebec may be experiencing higher rates than the rest of North America is their tendency to travel to Europe - parts of Europe are experiencing measles outbreaks.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 18 Old 10-01-2012, 05:14 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

Fwiw, one reason I read that Quebec may be experiencing higher rates than the rest of North America is their tendency to travel to Europe - parts of Europe are experiencing measles outbreaks.  

Well that points to vaccine failure, does it not?

 

Measles among vaccinated Quebec kids questioned

 

 

 

Quote:

It's generally assumed that the measles vaccine, when given in a two-dose schedule in early childhood, should protect against measles infection about 99 per cent of the time. So the discovery that 52 of the 98 teens who caught measles were fully vaccinated came as a shock to the researchers who conducted the investigation.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that the remainder of the teens were vaccinated, they just hadn't had the two doses, so this outbreak occured in a 100% vaccinated population.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#18 of 18 Old 10-02-2012, 09:07 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

I remember reading somewhere that the remainder of the teens were vaccinated, they just hadn't had the two doses, so this outbreak occured in a 100% vaccinated population.

 

No, it was a highly vaccinated population for this particular school, but not 100%.  It does raise questions about the timing of the vaccine.  http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IDSA/29238

 

 

 

Quote:

That outbreak was apparently sparked by a single teacher who brought the virus home from a Caribbean vacation, De Serres said. All told, the school recorded 98 classical cases and another 12 cases that met some but not all of the criteria for a measles case.

Only 4.7% of the students in the school were unvaccinated, he noted, and they bore the brunt of the outbreak, with half of the 98 cases and an attack rate of 82%. On the other hand, there were 41 cases among the 1,111 students with complete vaccination, for a much lower attack rate of 3.7%.

But that is still higher than would be expected, De Serres said, if the two doses of vaccine – delivered at 12 and 18 months – are as effective as has been thought.

Analysis showed that the attack rate was 5.9% if students got their first shot at 12 months, with a vaccine efficacy of 93%. But among the minority whose first shots were delayed to 15 months, the attack rate was 2.1% with a vaccine efficacy of 97.5%, suggesting that the later vaccine schedule prolonged immunity.

 

I would be nice to know if those 12 cases that met some criteria were actually measles or not.  Also it's a bit unclear because they only speak of unvaxed and completely vaxed, no mention of those who only got one shot. 

 

However, looking at statistics elsewhere, the gap between one shot and two is generally pretty small; most who get the first also get the second.  In this school, they say that half of the 98 official measles cases were unvaxed, and half of 98 is 49.  Since 41 cases were completely vaxed, I'm guessing the other 8 not accounted for by adding those two numbers together were among those who had had a single shot.  (If "half" in this case really meant "about half" rather than exactly and the unvaxed actually included everyone who hadn't had two shots, that would have been 57 cases, almost sixty percent, which at least would have merited an "over half," so there must be a third category.)  

 

Absolutely there was some vaccine failure going on; since the vax is not 100%, there always is.  Even if the population had been 100% vaxed, it is still possible to have an outbreak if someone brings measles into the population and by chance happens to have close contact and infect a few of the small percentage who is still vulnerable despite vaccinated, just as it is possible to roll a six three times in a row even with a fairly weighted die.  The difference is, with only a small percentage of people who are not already immune, the outbreak can not be sustained and will fizzle out as no one infected manages to come into enough contact with a vulnerable person, just as eventually when rolling the die you will reach a stretch where you don't roll any sixes for quite a while.  

 

Also note that this just raises a question that should be looked into further; it is not conclusive by itself.  It is only from looking at 98 cases.  

pers is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off