Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Selfishness? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
05-19-2014 09:39 AM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO- when one doesn't care, they also do not walk in the other's shoes (so to say) and thus lack the understanding of the situation. Those on here who have posted also do not ask for others to vaccinate for them (or in place of them). You have no problem insinuating we "maybe taking advantage of the system".  

 

You don't know, don't care yet feel we maybe taking advantage of what you are doing - that's judgmental, if you actually did know, you might understand where I am coming from.  

 

!) So it's actually offensive to you for me to say that I don't care what you do?  That...is wild, truly.

 

2) I should make it clear that we ALL "take advantage" of the system, I do as much as you do.  You are putting connotations on the phrase that I did not intend. 

05-19-2014 04:19 AM
serenbat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I have no idea what you're taking about.  What do I not understand?  The reason could be medical, religious, moral, ethical, or just because you don't like 'em, I really don't care.  I don't see how you can read my post which basically says that it's up to you, not me, what you want to do...and read that as judgmental.  It's like you're just looking to be offended at this point. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

I couldn't and wouldn't make a blanket statement about the selfishness of people who don't vax.  I personally believe it is a civic duty to do so, similar I guess to paying taxes.  Those who can should, and those who can't may take advantage of the system.  In regards to vaccination, I leave it up to the conscience of the individual whether they fall into the "can't" category or not. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

 

Meaning...I don't judge whether I think the person falls into that category or not, I don't know their situation and it's up to them to make that call. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Oh my god who cares?  I have repeatedly said that this is a society thing, not a government thing.

 

All of us, put together as a group, benefits from herd immunity, so I think that if one can vaccinate, one should vaccinate, in order to keep herd immunity going for those who can't.  That last sentence is it in a nutshell...call it whatever you want. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

This entire thread is on the subject "selfishness." 

Yes, I'm using the word "can't" very loosely here.

 

 

IMO- when one doesn't care, they also do not walk in the other's shoes (so to say) and thus lack the understanding of the situation. Those on here who have posted also do not ask for others to vaccinate for them (or in place of them). You have no problem insinuating we "maybe taking advantage of the system".  

 

You don't know, don't care yet feel we maybe taking advantage of what you are doing - that's judgmental, if you actually did know, you might understand where I am coming from.  

05-19-2014 01:33 AM
prosciencemum

Turquesa - you make a good point.

 

I made an analogy which I was using to demonstrate that no action (even hand washing) is without risk. It's patently absurd to suggest we only wash hands in the presence of a Doctor, but it is also true that people die from accidents/very unlikely bad things which happen when they are washing there hands. 

 

However I do agree that it makes sense to get vaccinated at the Doctors, so I clearly don't quite put it in the same risk category as hand washing. Although I think the most likely outcome of both activities is not likely to be negative in the end. I of course know rare serious reactions occur when people are vaccinated, and you don't know in advance if that will be you/your kid who reacts. Since getting vaccinated itself is a rare occurrence why not be at the Doctors office in the very unlikely event it happens. In any case I'd prefer medically trained people to inject my kids with sharp objects and do it under proper medical hygiene (OK actually I'd prefer no-one go near my kids with sharp objects, but I'll put up with it for medicine I believe it is a good idea for them to get). 

 

I'm not quite sure what the recent Onion article is making fun of, but making vaccines at home is clearly a ridiculous idea.

05-18-2014 07:35 PM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post


I know of none minus religious, moral or ethical and not understanding that comes off as way judgmental IMO.

 

I have no idea what you're taking about.  What do I not understand?  The reason could be medical, religious, moral, ethical, or just because you don't like 'em, I really don't care.  I don't see how you can read my post which basically says that it's up to you, not me, what you want to do...and read that as judgmental.  It's like you're just looking to be offended at this point. 

05-18-2014 07:17 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

I'm not referring to anyone specifically, only those who feel they can't vax, for whatever reason.  Here is exactly what I said, in my first post in this thread (emphasis added)...
Quote:

Meaning...I don't judge whether I think the person falls into that category or not, I don't know their situation and it's up to them to make that call. 


I know of none minus religious, moral or ethical and not understanding that comes off as way judgmental IMO.
05-18-2014 07:01 PM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

So who exactly is she referring to here? Take away medical, moral/religious/ethical and what group exactly is she talking about here?

So is PSM correct? and IF so, who are you talking about here?

 

 

I'm not referring to anyone specifically, only those who feel they can't vax, for whatever reason.  Here is exactly what I said, in my first post in this thread (emphasis added)...

Quote:

Those who can should, and those who can't may take advantage of the system.  In regards to vaccination, I leave it up to the conscience of the individual whether they fall into the "can't" category or not.

 

Meaning...I don't judge whether I think the person falls into that category or not, I don't know their situation and it's up to them to make that call. 

05-18-2014 05:58 PM
One_Girl I think that's just the nature of debates, especially group debates. People find a topic interesting, join in, and do some things they would do if listening actively in person (rephrase what the other person said to see of they interpreted it correctly and stating agreement or another perspective). People on the pro and antivax side support each other often on these threads by doing this and I think it makes the threads more interesting to read. Even if you are wrong in your interpretation your interpretation may bring up points to think about or points someone with an oppossing view feels are important and can use to continue a thoughtful and productivity conversation. If you don't what to see what others are saying you can search threads or click an icon to prevent posts from specific users showing up on your screen.
05-18-2014 05:45 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post

It is my understanding that in a debate thread people interpret, form opinions, and respond. It's a common thing on many mdc threads and I didn't see any guidelines limiting typical debate norms. I also didn't see a post where the poster in question said she meant something different. Perhaps you can quote it or the rules that say people can't interpet information or post responses to the thread.

You didn't see my last post?

 

I did post where PSM says one thing about MM and MM says clearly another. It certainly comes off as that!

 

So you are saying one person is implying and I am saying, why not let that person say what THEY really feel if there is confusion and not someone else - you may see things one way and the other person didn't mean it that way.                     Why speak for the other person, can't they? 

 

Like I said, talking for others isn't letting them state how they really meant something and you could be wrong. 

05-18-2014 05:39 PM
One_Girl It is my understanding that in a debate thread people interpret, form opinions, and respond. It's a common thing on many mdc threads and I didn't see any guidelines limiting typical debate norms. I also didn't see a post where the poster in question said she meant something different. Perhaps you can quote it or the rules that say people can't interpet information or post responses to the thread.
05-18-2014 05:30 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Moderatemom made it fairly clear that her 'can't vaccinate' included people with either medical or moral/religious/ethical reasons not to vaccinate. REALLY?
 

So who exactly is she referring to here? Take away medical, moral/religious/ethical and what group exactly is she talking about here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

This entire thread is on the subject "selfishness." 

Yes, I'm using the word "can't" very loosely here.

So is PSM correct? and IF so, who are you talking about here?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post

I think she was implying the risks were equally too low to worry about but you may be correct that she is equally concerned to a high degree about both. If you thought she was implying both are high I don't understand why you would make fun of that because it makes both seem equally ridiculous. Maybe I'm misunderstanding who is for vaccination and who is against it.

 

In general this thread comes off as a whole lot of assuming/implying  and that doesn't seem to be correct now does it? Why all the speaking for others???? Only to find it's not really what they actually mean?

05-18-2014 10:31 AM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

 

You are assuming that psm thinks that doctors are needed to supervise vaccinations.   

 



I am assuming no such thing. I've been trying, as diplomatically as possibly, to point out how patently absurd it is to place vaccines and hand-washing in the same risk category. It's begging for satire. If their risk factors were "about the same," (again, using PSM's exact words), here is what the status quo should look like:

1. In order to continue profitably to make products of value for public health, all manufacturers of soap, sinks, and hot water heaters will be exempt from traditional tort claims. A special compensation court, funded by a surcharge on said products, will reimburse consumers only after causality for the death or injury is satisfactorily proven.

2. Federal law will mandate that prior to each instance of hand-washing, children be given a Hand-washing Information Sheet to review the risks and benefits of hand-washing.

3. A medical professional shall be present for each hand-washing procedure. Pharmacists will want in on the game, but health care providers will protest, saying that this procedure is too risky to be done outside of a doctor's office. http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_23797331/groves-vaccination-bill-aims-expand-parents-options

I suppose on the flip-side, we could put vaccines and hand-washing on the same, consistent playing field by making vaccines available OTC and administered in your own home bathroom.

But just to clarify, as I linked once before and again in this post, it was the Pennsylvania Medical Society that is opposed to pharmacists giving vaccines, arguing that it should happen in a doctor's clinic in case of adverse reactions. I strongly doubt that they object to nurses giving the shots, and they haven't expressed that they do, so long as a physician is on the premises.

I honestly don't mind a pharmacist doing it, either, as I could get the vaccines that I want a la carte without going through the rigamarole of well-child checks with the vaccine compliance-pushing and unsolicited parenting advice. Also, as stated in the afore-linked article, pharmacists at least have clients wait 20 minutes after the vaccine until leaving. That's more than I can say for any doctor I've visited. IME they just vax you up, give you your paperwork, and send you out the door.
05-17-2014 02:13 PM
One_Girl I think she was implying the risks were equally too low to worry about but you may be correct that she is equally concerned to a high degree about both. If you thought she was implying both are high I don't understand why you would make fun of that because it makes both seem equally ridiculous. Maybe I'm misunderstanding who is for vaccination and who is against it.
05-17-2014 02:13 PM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post

I think proscience mom was saying she's not worried about the risk of vaccine injury for her child or the risk of injury while washing hands so the reference to a doctor going in with children to wash hands makes no sense, especially if you understood that this was her meaning.



This site gives some statistics related to burns from tap water.

http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Injury-and-Fatality-Statistics/pid/12015



This site gives information about falls.



http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx



And the vaers site (or a site of your choice) can give you statistics about the rate of vaccine injury which you can use to gather more information and form your own opinion about whether you agree with proscience or not about the risks of each being similar.



I don't think selfish is really a term that applies to health choices but maybe that's because I selfishly don't care about other people's children and only make decisions that I believe will benefit my child.

 



Her exact statement was that "both have about the same risk of serious side effects." I'm just following her logic to her natural conclusion. If what she says is true, then either we employ doctors to accompany us to the bathroom for adverse hand-washing events, (and, apparently, to the kitchen for adverse water-consumption events), or we start getting our vaccines OTC and administering them at home. (Don't link to it if it's offensive, but wasn't there some bizarre Onion article about that recently?) Anyway, I'll go easy on her. There's no reason to ask that she defend the indefensible.

 

You are assuming that psm thinks that doctors are needed to supervise vaccinations.  I personally wouldn't have any problem at all having a nurse or pharmacist give my kids their vaccinations, and there are lots of other equally risky things I do with my kids all the time without a doctor's supervision.  Probably the most dangerous thing I ever do with my kids is drive in a car, and it's not like I have a paramedic riding along with us on every trip. 

05-17-2014 02:05 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post

I think proscience mom was saying she's not worried about the risk of vaccine injury for her child or the risk of injury while washing hands so the reference to a doctor going in with children to wash hands makes no sense, especially if you understood that this was her meaning.



This site gives some statistics related to burns from tap water.

http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Injury-and-Fatality-Statistics/pid/12015



This site gives information about falls.



http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx



And the vaers site (or a site of your choice) can give you statistics about the rate of vaccine injury which you can use to gather more information and form your own opinion about whether you agree with proscience or not about the risks of each being similar.



I don't think selfish is really a term that applies to health choices but maybe that's because I selfishly don't care about other people's children and only make decisions that I believe will benefit my child.

 



Her exact statement was that "both have about the same risk of serious side effects." I'm just following her logic to her natural conclusion. If what she says is true, then either we employ doctors to accompany us to the bathroom for adverse hand-washing events, (and, apparently, to the kitchen for adverse water-consumption events), or we start getting our vaccines OTC and administering them at home. (Don't link to it if it's offensive, but wasn't there some bizarre Onion article about that recently?) Anyway, I'll go easy on her. There's no reason to ask that she defend the indefensible.
05-17-2014 01:59 PM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

You're creating an artificial category there, the category of "low risk because they've never had a reaction before."  Everyone is in that category before their first reaction. My family used to be in that category, too.  The first vaccine was not the one ANY of us had a severe reaction to.

 

It's not an artificial category, that's how risk is assessed...it means the risk that you will be one of the people who has the reaction.  It's like, I don't know, getting cancer.  If you have no known risk factors (such as family history), then your risk is equal to the percentage of the population that gets cancer.  Let's say (and I'm making this number up) that 5 out of 100 women get breast cancer at some point.  I have no knowledge of any family history of breast cancer, so I would assess my personal risk at 5%...meaning, I have a 5% chance of being one of the people who gets it.  That is, that I will be one of the 5 out of 100.  In reality, I will either get it (100% risk) or not get it (0% risk), but not having any way of knowing that, I assume my risk is 5%. 

 

The thing I'm not really getting about your argument is that I'm not sure why it matters to you that prosciencemum and I are willing to take on the risk.  She said in this thread that she believes the risk for her family is very low and that the benefits are worth it to her.  She also said that she understands that's not the case for everyone.  So, I'm not sure how this attitude on her part is harming you.  And I for one said (and I'm quoting this exactly) "In regards to vaccination, I leave it up to the conscience of the individual whether they fall into the "can't" category or not."  I get that we come from different points of view on this, and that's fine. 

05-17-2014 12:56 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Regarding your first paragraph...why do you think that's what prosciencemum was saying?  She's not talking about risks for people who have had severe reactions, she's talking about risks for people who haven't, which is the category she fits in.  That's her whole point...that as a family that has no prior negative reactions nor any other reason to suspect that there might be negative reactions, she feels the risk is low enough for her.

 

And, I really don't think her post is inflammatory or insensitive.  We all take risks every day and have to accept that bad things might happen.  Sometimes the benefit/reward is worth the risk. 

 

You're creating an artificial category there, the category of "low risk because they've never had a reaction before."  Everyone is in that category before their first reaction. My family used to be in that category, too.  The first vaccine was not the one ANY of us had a severe reaction to.

05-17-2014 11:43 AM
samaxtics

People wash their hands with dirty water all over the world.  As a result of doing so I am not aware of anything more serious than perhaps hives/rashes on the skin.

 

Unless you are now changing your argument from risks from washing your hands to risks from drinking the water?

05-17-2014 11:07 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Not to beat a dead horse, but there's rare examples where nasty chemicals/contaminants got into municipal water supplies as well right?

Sure.  I actually know a lot of people who avoid drinking tap water, although I am not one of them.  

 

It was the anniversery recently of Walkerton, a huge ecoli outbreak that took the lives of a number of people in a small Ontario town.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/inside-walkerton-canada-s-worst-ever-e-coli-contamination-1.887200

05-17-2014 10:59 AM
prosciencemum Not to beat a dead horse, but there's rare examples where nasty chemicals/contaminants got into municipal water supplies as well right?
05-17-2014 09:52 AM
samaxtics

I do not agree with these comparisons.

Vaccines contain ingredients which are injected.  There are examples of contaminants etc that were found after these vaccines were rolled out to the general population - SV40, Porcine viruses, HPV DNA.  If even the people who make them don't know they are there, how can the consumer be in a position to properly ascertain risks?

Whilst the person being vaccinated may appear to be in good health, there may be issues unknown/undetected at the time which would make vaccination not in their best interest.  An example of this is the females already infected with HPV who are then given the vaccine which increases their risk of cancer by over 40%.  Without this information, how can a consumer be in a position to properly ascertain their own risks?

05-17-2014 07:45 AM
moderatemom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Are you really saying that your kids have as much risk from washing their hands as mine have from vaccinating? When you KNOW that my kids had medically documented severe adverse effects from vaccinating?

Bad things just HAPPEN? So we should continue to inject everyone with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines, knowing that at least some will have no immune response, some will have seizures, many more will have autoimmune reactions, and some will die from the shot, because "bad things just happen?"

That's one of the most inflammatory, insensensitive posts I've seen here in a long time.

 

Regarding your first paragraph...why do you think that's what prosciencemum was saying?  She's not talking about risks for people who have had severe reactions, she's talking about risks for people who haven't, which is the category she fits in.  That's her whole point...that as a family that has no prior negative reactions nor any other reason to suspect that there might be negative reactions, she feels the risk is low enough for her.

 

And, I really don't think her post is inflammatory or insensitive.  We all take risks every day and have to accept that bad things might happen.  Sometimes the benefit/reward is worth the risk. 

05-17-2014 07:38 AM
moderatemom

This entire thread is on the subject "selfishness." 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Moderatemom made it fairly clear that her 'can't vaccinate' included people with either medical or moral/religious/ethical reasons not to vaccinate.

 

Yes, I'm using the word "can't" very loosely here.

05-17-2014 07:19 AM
One_Girl I think proscience mom was saying she's not worried about the risk of vaccine injury for her child or the risk of injury while washing hands so the reference to a doctor going in with children to wash hands makes no sense, especially if you understood that this was her meaning.

This site gives some statistics related to burns from tap water.
http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Injury-and-Fatality-Statistics/pid/12015

This site gives information about falls.

http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx

And the vaers site (or a site of your choice) can give you statistics about the rate of vaccine injury which you can use to gather more information and form your own opinion about whether you agree with proscience or not about the risks of each being similar.

I don't think selfish is really a term that applies to health choices but maybe that's because I selfishly don't care about other people's children and only make decisions that I believe will benefit my child.
05-17-2014 06:48 AM
Turquesa Also, I can't link to it, but look up an old thread that I started, "Should Pharmacists Administer Vaccinations?" You may recall that the Pennsylvania Medical Society believes that a physician should be present in case of an adverse reaction. Should a doctor follow your child to the bathroom every time she washes her hands? Just in case she slips and bashes her head on the sink?
05-17-2014 06:41 AM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Moderatemom made it fairly clear that her 'can't vaccinate' included people with either medical or moral/religious/ethical reasons not to vaccinate.

I'm happy to wash my hands and vaccinate. In my opinion both have about the same risk of serious side effects, I'm not saying that in jest.

A statement on risk assessment would be one of fact, not opinion. Can you provide evidence that hand-washing and vaccination bear the same risk level?
05-17-2014 06:19 AM
kathymuggle

I'm happy to wash my hands and vaccinate. In my opinion both have about the same risk of serious side effects, I'm not saying that in jest. My kids could slip and bash their heads on the sink. Bad stuff just happens - in my opinion hand washing is unavoidably unsafe (just at a low risk level).

 

If you decide the risks of washing your hands is too high, you can skip it.  

 

AFAIK, children are never systematically excluded from school for failure to wash their hands, although one can certainly argue that in terms of overall disease prevention, hand washing is more important than vaccination.  

 

One can also take and teach precautions for avoiding falls…not so for vaccine reactions.

05-17-2014 04:37 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Moderatemom made it fairly clear that her 'can't vaccinate' included people with either medical or moral/religious/ethical reasons not to vaccinate.

I'm happy to wash my hands and vaccinate. In my opinion both have about the same risk of serious side effects, I'm not saying that in jest. My kids could slip and bash their heads on the sink. Bad stuff just happens - in my opinion hand washing is unavoidably unsafe (just at a low risk level).

Are you really saying that your kids have as much risk from washing their hands as mine have from vaccinating? When you KNOW that my kids had medically documented severe adverse effects from vaccinating?

Bad things just HAPPEN? So we should continue to inject everyone with aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines, knowing that at least some will have no immune response, some will have seizures, many more will have autoimmune reactions, and some will die from the shot, because "bad things just happen?"

That's one of the most inflammatory, insensensitive posts I've seen here in a long time.
05-16-2014 11:49 PM
prosciencemum Moderatemom made it fairly clear that her 'can't vaccinate' included people with either medical or moral/religious/ethical reasons not to vaccinate.

I'm happy to wash my hands and vaccinate. In my opinion both have about the same risk of serious side effects, I'm not saying that in jest. My kids could slip and bash their heads on the sink. Bad stuff just happens - in my opinion hand washing is unavoidably unsafe (just at a low risk level).
05-16-2014 06:48 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

I'm not attacking anyone.  In my very first post in this thread, I said I leave it up to individuals whether they fall into the "we can't vaccinate" category...specifically not giving any criteria or government strictures.  If you think that's attacking, then we can't even have this conversation.

 

Edit:  Likewise, I didn't violate the posting guidelines, because I put all who decide they can't vaccinate in the group of people who need to be protected by herd immunity.  That means, I expect those of us who can vaccinate to help protect your families, since you have decided that you can't.  

 

I was about to post an answer, but OrmEmbar says pretty much what I wanted to say:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post

What if a family "chooses" to not vaccinate? Not because they "cannot" but because they have a good understanding of human physiology and epidemiology and have decided that vaccines are not the best approach to their family's healthcare?

ETA: this theoretical family also believes that it is in the best interest of their wider community that people do not believe or rely upon the concept of herd immunity. It is an interesting and compelling theory that is impossible to attain in real applications. ( much like the difference between in vitro and in vivo experiments)

 

I do want to add that I think it's paternalistic and controlling for some people to decide that me or my family "need" to be protected from diseases by mandating an invasive medical procedure on others.  I don't believe that that medical procedure is anywhere near as safe or effective as painted by those who sell it (and profit in the billions from the sale).  Please don't tell me that you are "protecting" me by submitting to it, because that seems like an attempt to throw responsibility my way, in case you have an adverse reaction to it.  I never asked you for such protection, I don't believe it is necessarily going to protect either of us, and, in fact, I'd prefer it if you simply washed your hands.

05-16-2014 02:42 PM
OrmEmbar

I seem to pose questions that don't get responses.  I was really hoping ModerateMom would answer.  I posed the example as theoretical so we could talk concepts and keep away from personal inflammatory responses.

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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