Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
memespace and public perception
#91
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:42 PM
Radical forces get the publicity, and are the precursors to change.
#92
Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:57 PM
Well, I'm still fond of my "community resource" and "public advocacy" framework (along with the Greenpeace vs. EDF analogy).
I think ImmInst does this fairly well and can continue doing so whether a name change takes place or not.
That said, there seems to be more confusion about the goals of this organization than that simple idea provides for...
In my case it's not so much confusion but more along the lines of potential. If ImmInst is to be an "umbrella" organization then research might be something that could fall under the umbrella if the publicity draws significant resources and and longevity research earns a spot at the public forum of credible science worth pursuing today rather than its present state of being viewed as science fiction.
1. An accredited research institute (maestro949).
I like his idea
Aubrey has proposed an Institute of Biomedical Gerontology (IBG). Perhaps that is where I should be hanging out but there is no message board there to spam with my ramblings :(
2. An anti-aging product expertise center and vendor a la LEF (nootropikamil).
Yeah, whatever. Not my cup-o-green-tea but having a forum for those interested in discussing is fine.
3. A focused resource / promotional for a SENS research topic (MethuselahMouse).
I think there's a lot of overlap with #1 here. SENS is the theory and proposal. MMP is one way of drawing $, attention and demonstrating the science in action. The LysoSENS project is also going on and of keen interest to those interest in seeing progress and could be lumped in w/#1.
4. A broad organization that seeks to encompass every facet of aging / death (elrond, brainbox).
Without specifics, tough to comment on this but that's what the forums seem to encompass whether it be futuristic, religious debate, philosophy, transhumanism, etc.
we're like the Billy Graham Crusade for immortality.
minus the $105 million in yearly revenue.
#93
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:08 PM
sponsored ad
#94
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:13 PM
I personally prefer the later as I feel it is more accurate. "Infinite" doesn't appear to implicitly give a choice, whereas "unlimited" does. Furthermore, “unlimited” is far more PR friendly.
#95
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:17 PM
Aubrey in the earlier debate brought up the idea of changing our slogan from "for infinite lifespans" to "for unlimited lifespans".
I agree, but everything needs to be changed in my opinion.
#96
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:20 PM
I am all for tweaking. In fact, I think organizations should constantly be tweaking, refining processes, etc. so as not to become stagnant. There is a difference, however, between refining and a total overhaul, including a name change. It is my opinion that anything to be gained from a complete overhaul/name change would not be any greater than starting a website from scratch, and would lose the benefits from keeping our name.ImmInst needs a rebirth. It needs to start a fresh. ImmInst is not using all of the potential it has to become something really special. I think some refining is in order. There should be alot more Full Members than there already are.
In other words, in terms of meme:
New site + Imminst: Best case scenario = net gain; worst case scenario = stay the same (no net loss or gain, if new site doesn't work)
Imminst Overhauled: Best case scenario = net gain equal to what New site would have done on its own; worst case scenario = net loss (if overhaul doesn't work)
#97
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:38 PM
#98
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:42 PM
I totally agree with that. I would love to see more money flowing through, the ability to take on larger marketing efforts, funding of research, lobbying Congress on transhuman issues, etc. etc.I think another problem is the lack of real communication between members. Of course we are pretty much familiar with each other on the forums]Immortality[/i] we are talking about here, something that has until a single decade's time remained something dreamt by countless people for millenia! Surely this place needs to evolve into a real institute, with alot more activism being done. The Immortality Institute is just an institute by name at the moment.
Any have Bill Gates (or Steve Jobs, or those Google guys', or...) phone number?
#99
Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:47 PM
Edited by biopunk, 07 June 2006 - 05:04 PM.
#100
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:05 PM
#101
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:12 PM
Bio and Live Forever, I appreciate your insightful posts. Personally, I'd like to see more objective, subject oriented dialog. Opinions are one thing, facts are something one can actually bite into.
Hi Peter, and thanks. But it can be rather difficult for one to surpress one's passions about something he feels so strongly about.
#102
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:17 PM
#103
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:26 PM
#104
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:42 PM
#105
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:57 PM
**Imagine on a crossfire-like show, where a biocon says, "These guys are kooks. Hell their name use to be the Immortality Institute before they changed it! That shows you where they're really coming from." **
That would be disasterous because then we would be entirely on the defensive trying to explain why we changed our name and why we were mistaken in naming our organization the Immortality Institute in the first place.
versus
Yes, we're the Immortality Institute *pow, in your face*. Now let's define our terms.
Aubrey's stategy reminds me of a martial artist who, rather than blocking an opponents punch, takes the momentum from the punch and throws the attacker across the room.
#106
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:00 PM
ImmInst seems to have been started as a simple concept with high-minded ideas, but without a well-defined, doable mission...something that would rally the troops, so to speak. It's more like a club. ImmInst has no leadership position of value--nothing that would cause the press or public to stand up and take notice.
The fact that there are so few full members, in fact, suggests to me that even those who are motivated by the idea of open-ended lifespans see little value to this group, other than a local place for like-minded people to communicate, and share knowledge. But, that alone is nothing more than a Yahoo chat group.
For ImmInst to matter to the larger world, it needs to set an agenda. It needs to point to where were going, suggest how we'll get there, and help coin the key words we'll all be using when we arrive.
For ImmInst to rise above chat group status, someone must lead. Otherwise, let's keep talking about supplements, nanotech, immortality, and whether there's a god or not, while the rest of the world giggles and goes about its business.
#107
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:16 PM
And the best leaders DO NOT listen to their troops, then make a consensus opinion.
Yes, I agree with you wanting ImmInst to transcend it's status as an online community, Dukenukem...but how can ImmInst be a pleasant and happy place for it's members if the Leadership chooses to ignore the opinions and preferences of normal members? Yes, most militant leaders never listened to their subordinates whilst making a decision amongst themselves...but ImmInst is not an armed force or some Guerilla cell.
#108
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:23 PM
Bottom-line, as with any organization, is that direction must come from leadership. Leaders must not only know how to lead, but where to lead. And the best leaders DO NOT listen to their troops, then make a consensus opinion. Anyone think Patton asked his soldiers for command-level ideas?
The types of issue we are discussing are not dealt with over night, and never without deliberation.
For ImmInst to matter to the larger world, it needs to set an agenda. It needs to point to where were going, suggest how we'll get there, and help coin the key words we'll all be using when we arrive.
For ImmInst to rise above chat group status, someone must lead. Otherwise, let's keep talking about supplements, nanotech, immortality, and whether there's a god or not, while the rest of the world giggles and goes about its business.
Yes, yes, setting a viable agenda is crucial and I think everyone understands this. The point of this thread, however, was to determine what maximizes our memetic appeal. Having a viable agenda is without question one of the major determinates, but that is a huge issue that could use a thread all its own.
The major thrust of this thread was regarding the movement's name and how we utilize/defend it.
There are few options as I see it:
(1) Keep the name (and defend it, redefine terms, etc) *Aubrey and many others*
(2) Establish more than one web presence for the movement and have multiple messages for multiple groups. *Live Forver, maestro*
(3) Lose the name (go for something more conservative, less confrontational, and/or more memetic appeal) *Harold, yourself, and many others*
Actually, let me try breaking that down again.
(a) Keep the name and the message exactly as is.
(b) Keep the name and tweek the message.
© Add on additional names and messages (sacrifices clarity and unity for coverage and defendability)
(d) Lose the name and change the message.
#109
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:31 PM
#2 dilutes, IMO
#3 conservative/less confrontational isnt strong enough, I think that the positives of a strong statement name outweighs the negatives...more appeal?, as the idea and focus of IMMINST gains traction the name will fall into place...I also think there is a weakness in changing it unless the goals of the INST change great enough to justify it.
"Actually, let me try breaking that down again."
me too,
B is #1
C may be a must if the institute reaches a point where it would be beneficial....but the change should be due to growth, not forced
Edited by cnorwood19, 07 June 2006 - 06:53 PM.
#110
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:34 PM
However I did agree with you on the observation that the name imminst is not going to build bridges, I do not agree with this. Well, partly maybe.And the best leaders DO NOT listen to their troops
There's quite a difference between profit and non-profit organisations in the respect. Key factor being the level of democracy that is required, tolerated or involved in the internal processes of the organisation.
Imminst is more like a political organisation, I would not compare it with a military one. If it is, there even is a bigger communication issue to be addressed....
But what you probably did want to express is that there should be a balance. There should be enough leadership initiative and communication to keep the ranks closed once a decision is made. Right now, we are in the middle of the democratic process to find our decision, our direction. Provided we are not part of general whoeverhisnameis troops.
What I fail to understand is why we need to keep our name to keep the ownership of the term immortalism. Immortalism can still me a part of our mission statement.
So I would opt for (d1) "lose the name and tweek the message". Sorry for stepping out of the context again, but, I'm Dutch you know....
#111
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:50 PM
I do, however, think that we should continue to tweak our message and perhaps take up some other outreach opportunities. (as mentioned in the thread in the "Full Member" forum that spawned this thread, but Basic people can't see that one, I suppose)
#112
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:55 PM
#113
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:01 PM
Interesting...The money is out there and ready to flow, once the idea of an open-ended immortality can be rationally seeded in the human mind.
If there's one thing I lament, it's not having more time and funds (personally) to commit to ImmInst. What little time I have, I admittedly probably squander "chatting" in the fora when I could be doing things behind the scenes to improve the forum or plan future projects.For ImmInst to rise above chat group status, someone must lead.
Part of the problem is the volunteer nature of leadership; we put in what time we can, when we can. Bruce had much more free time when he got ImmInst going, and that's part of the reason for it's success: he was able to dedicate what I cannot.
Part of the problem is my own inexperience, procrastination, and general inability to provide leadership. I'm working on it, but feel daunted by the task and by my own weaknesses.
Part of the problem is lack of ImmInst funds with which to start anything more than grass-roots projects (like the ones we've done, which considering the budgets available, were pretty amazing). This is a sort of chicken-and-egg problem: attracting funding without projects to show, and no funding to do projects. We can get funding without anything in the pipeline, and we can do projects without big funding, but both are necessarily more difficult than they'd be once we have both funding and projects in the pipeline.
Finally, we lack a bit of coherency, which is much clearer to me now, thanks to these discussions. While they haven't convinced me of a need to change our name or our end mission, I am convinced that we need to put more emphasis on our short term goals and plans. We need more focus and organization, and we need leadership to start providing that focus. I'm not sure when I'll be able to step up to that responsibility: a few months at least, methinks, since I'm moving to California in three weeks and trying to upgrade the forum software and add blogs and get the site tweaked a little more stable, all at the same time.
But once things have calmed down, I do plan to invest more energy into ImmInst. In the meantime, I'm softening up to this discussion. Let's keep the ideas coming.
#114
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:21 PM
The bottom line is we dont have money. There is no revenue source out there for us. No millionaire is gonna drop us a wad of cash to fix the future. Our name is Important but only in a way that it could be tied into revenue.
What if we took a play outa some other charities books and had for profit companies we owned. I know we dont have cash but online stores take little and with a little work and using a different name such as Eminent@ we could have a small company or store that helps provide cash example .
Eminent Brand Jeans Made in china(were an International Org ) manage to design one pair get a contract with wally world and sell to the masses.
I know I oversimplified that but its just an example.
We have tons of people on here that are talented and intellegent and all we can do is chat. Time to bring out the big guns
#115
Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:01 PM
I admittedly probably squander "chatting" in the fora when I could be doing things behind the scenes to improve the forum or plan future projects.
rjws
We have tons of people on here that are talented and intellegent and all we can do is chat.
Okay, we're going a bit off topic again, but these (prevailing) sentiments are something I believe needs to be addressed.
Can we be doing more?
Yes, absolutely. I feel just as guilty as the next member that I'm not getting enough done, that I'm slacking, that I'm bsing on the forums, that I could be studing my molecular bio more, and on and on and on...
But we shouldn't be beating ourselves up people. We do what we can and that's the bottom line.
And there's another important point that needs to be made. Talking, communicating with others, *projecting the meme* is an immensely important task all by itself.
Letting people know that these ideas are legitimate and not pie-in-the-sky. Letting people know that there are others with a similar mind set out there. The intangible value of *group memetics* can't be overstated. There's no telling how many young adults (or old adults [lol] ) we have influenced in terms of their academic pursuits or career path.
My perspective /// Connect with the minds that are predisposed and liquidate apathy.
#116
Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:11 PM
1. We've been around for less than four years and have exhibited continuous growth. Most people weren't around here to remember just how small ImmInst was back in 2003. Heck, I don't even go back to 2002, but take a look at the archives from the bjklein days. There's still a long way to go, but we have come a long way.
2. We have the most active futurist website on the planet.
I can think of more chest thumpers, but those two really stick out in my mind.
#117
Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:41 PM
Bottom-line, as with any organization, is that direction must come from leadership. Leaders must not only know how to lead, but where to lead. And the best leaders DO NOT listen to their troops, then make a consensus opinion. Anyone think Patton asked his soldiers for command-level ideas?
ImmInst seems to have been started as a simple concept with high-minded ideas, but without a well-defined, doable mission...something that would rally the troops, so to speak. It's more like a club. ImmInst has no leadership position of value--nothing that would cause the press or public to stand up and take notice.
The fact that there are so few full members, in fact, suggests to me that even those who are motivated by the idea of open-ended lifespans see little value to this group, other than a local place for like-minded people to communicate, and share knowledge. But, that alone is nothing more than a Yahoo chat group.
For ImmInst to matter to the larger world, it needs to set an agenda. It needs to point to where were going, suggest how we'll get there, and help coin the key words we'll all be using when we arrive.
For ImmInst to rise above chat group status, someone must lead. Otherwise, let's keep talking about supplements, nanotech, immortality, and whether there's a god or not, while the rest of the world giggles and goes about its business.
I am with you Duke, dude. I am a fairly militaristic person. I have a lot of great ideas, but they are pretty expensive. If I could see ImmInst's current capital and propose a few ideas how to spend it, I am reasonably sure (if implemented correctly) they would:
a) Generate a lot of capital for the Institute and causes it wishes to support
b) Generate more interest in anti-aging (and even nootropic) research
I currently am running a small business, whose inventory I could liquidate within a few months and close down to happily retreat from the soap opera type atmosphere in which it currently resides. I can take that cash and invest it in this project, or even better, just put it back in my pocket and work with the capital that is owned by this organization. The Institute might need to set up a new legal entity to deal with liability associated with sales of products and services such as dietary supplements and an aggressive print to publish campaign.
I would propose starting out with an online magazine with articles from the scientific minded folks of this community, such as Aubrey, Michael Cooper, MR, other folks from Mprize, Ben from Novamente...and that's just off the top of my head. What the first magazine could achieve would spark interest and set a standard with respect to scientific integrity which would strengthen the Institute, which would increase at an exponential rate as more and more read it. We would have to offer financial incentive to produce results to make this work. The lions' share of the profits will remain within this organization; however, folks who do work need to be paid for their time and expertise. There are several other details to be worked out in private; but non profit organizations such as this one have not been producing any results on par with other for profit on line forum websites. The leadership here would need to offer a simplified approval process for anything to get done -- there would have to be a fast track way of getting things accomplished. The Institute will need a chief of financial affairs to approve spending by this entity, exterior or not. We cannot have extensive deliberations on par with the LM thing to make simple day to day business decisions. A one week MAXIMUM one week deliberation process would make sense.
While I would hate to see ImmInst converted into a LEF type hype organization selling pseduoscience and unproven therapies, it might appear that way in its first stages. We would not want pop up advertisements or any ugly stuff like that, but using the statistics from Google search results to model what to sell is certainly a good idea. It would be possible to out do LEF within ten years or less, in my opinion. With the right marketing campaign, of course.
This is just off the top of my head, so rough draft and spontaneous.
Edited by nootropikamil, 07 June 2006 - 09:11 PM.
#118
Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:47 PM
How about:
LORRI
LOngevity and Rejuvenation Research Institute
www.lorri.org
Has a nice ring to it but the full name is a mouthful.
#119
Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:02 PM
No leader has ever succeeded that did not listen to his troops. How do you expect to know your force if you do not listen?
On this point even Patton would agree as it comes from Sun Tzu and Caesar.
The confusion lies in what you mean by *listen*. If you mean to suggest they do not *hear* the sentiments of the troops you are simply wrong. They not only need to hear the troops to determine morale and ability but also to develop intelligence, tactics and strategy by better knowing the troops they command.
If by *listen* you mean to suggest *obey,* then it is obviously an inappropriate metaphor to introduce. There has never been an instance of a successful military operation in the entire history of mankind that was run by committee, consensus or bureaucracy. Nobody expects or even wants a democratic process in a martial structure, it is antithetical to discipline and frankly an oxymoron. The problem is that we are not an army; we are not even a true corporation. We are a *political* and educational organization with a focus on a particular goal. Political not in the standard *party politics* sense but in the socially pragmatic meaning that we must be able and willing to engage the popular political process to publicly promote the meme.
To that end and before I make this a full fledged essay let’s get practical. Duke while I busted your chops about the previous comment I want to commend this one.
(Dukenukem)
Questions that need to be answered:
o How does this group benefit our society?
o Why would someone benefit by being a member of this group?
o Why would the press want to cover this group's existence and activities?
These are some of the most concrete and practical questions aside from the attractive lucrative aspects of markets that has been addressed here IMHO.
If we do not answer these questions, and address them well then we have no right to exist as an organization. It is a part of the reason for this thread but also it is about taking our cause to the street. We have discussed being mainstreamed before but as of yet we are not ready. To be ready these questions must be answered in clear, concise, and unambiguous language that isn’t only easy for all to understand but approve of.
We are not going to make everyone happy so get over that part. What we need to do is create a theme that is so attractive it cannot be denied. Some will still be threatened by what we have to say but we need to be clear about the message and stay focused. We cannot fight every battle or attempt to defend every transhumanist goal worthy of mention. In fact that is not only impossible it is the reason other organizations exist and I suggest that we should develop alliances of focus with them as they should with us.
Strategic alliances already exist but there is also a competition for a somewhat common membership. For this to be overcome it must be clear to all that together we present a more balanced and competent front against ignorance and divided we undermine all our best efforts.
Another part of that message we need is addressed well by Aubrey. It also demonstrate why we should both fear and love the word immortal.
(Aubrey)
I think we can conclude with absolute confidence that, of the three steps between our current situation and true immortality, the first is the one that by far dominates people's thinking. The three are, of course:
1) eliminating the increase with age in risk of death, i.e. "colloquial immortality"
2) reducing risk of death over time fast enough that some people really will live forever (see my previous posts on this - someone please edit this post to link to them, I'm just home and too zonked to do it - and my ImmInst book chapter), i.e. "possible immortality" (Edit: possible link he was referring to: http://www.imminst.o...w=pid&pid=38728 )
3) achieving a zero risk of death, i.e. true immortality
Next let's look at embracing the term. Here I mean embracing it fully, i.e. actually downplaying the difference between (2) and (3) above. I think that is a position which has very little to recommend it, since it undoubtedly implies a lack of critical thinking. It seems to me that, insofar as such a position has been supported in this group in the past, that has resulted from a strong emphasis on the technological feasibility of (2) and not just (1), underlined by the philosophical position of a number of people that life only has meaning if one literally never dies.
I do not disagree agree with Aubrey at all but I must contest the issue of *meaning for life*. It is this concept that prepared the quagmire we find ourselves. Just living does not create meaning for life. If it did depression would not exist as one of the hurdles we must confront. Life does not *equal* meaning it is a means to achieving meaning. So long as one is alive there exists hope for creating meaning in one’s life.
Much of what we need to better make people understand is that we help provide them the OPPORTUNITY to achieve meaning for their life. It is up to the individual to define what that is in terms they understand. This is also the source of where the conflict lies with many religious, political, and cultural organizations because they compete to define meaning through the psycho-social identifications they seek individuals to adopt in order to gain and keep membership to promote and perpetuate their existence. As an organization we are no different, we need to recruit and retain membership to survive. The theme we represent is as threatening to some organizations as the reformation was to the Catholic church.
In my opinion one part of our outreach should be to find those other *protestant* groups (those that protest the injustice of death), mobilize and unite our efforts before we all fall into sectarian division that dissipates our best potential. If we do not develop common cause those that oppose will divide and conquer our purpose.
I think Aubrey is saying we must better define our *mission*. For this to happen we should unambiguously focus on one (#2) of the three objectives for immortality. Frankly I think it is irrational to discuss #3 so long as we are corporeal let alone biological beings and number #1 is antithetical to the odds. The longer one lives the more risks they will be exposed to. All we can do is minimize unreasonable risk and find the means to recover from injury (both physical and psychological) while preventing or protecting ourselves against exposure from what we can. However, back to the issue of *meaning*; some of what defines meaning for many in life is derived through endeavors that include risk. For example the exploration of the seas, space, high energy physics, the resolution of political conflict etc all entail and will continue to entail great risk even if people lived for millennium.
So what’s in a word and why should we embrace it?
(Aubrey)
The nub of the issue as I see it, therefore, is whether there is a best of both worlds: a way to avoid being marginalised by our association with the term "immortality" while also avoiding spinning our wheels in a vain effort to escape from that term. I think this is indeed possible -- I think we can rise above this problem. I could be wrong, certainly, but in view of the above I think that even if this is a risky path it's still preferable to either of the alternatives just discussed.
Yes this is exactly the crux of the matter. I think there is a way out of this dilemma and I do not (as much as I opposed the term originally and am still uncomfortable with it) think we should discard it or abandon it to the unrealistic rhetoric of mystics. In fact the idea of scientific immortality forces a confrontation with the same mystical memes that are the deathist competition. Its use means that we have brought the battle for hearts and minds to the enemy. Giving it up is a tactical retreat that doesn’t necessarily bring us any closer to our goals.
So we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. How do we learn to live with this moniker? More importantly; how do we most effectively turn it to our advantage?
(Don)
There are few options as I see it:
(1) Keep the name (and defend it, redefine terms, etc) *Aubrey and many others*
(2) Establish more than one web presence for the movement and have multiple messages for multiple groups. *Live Forever, maestro*
(3) Lose the name (go for something more conservative, less confrontational, and/or more memetic appeal) *Harold, yourself, and many others*
There is one option that no one has suggested yet. It is a marketing trick that is in common use today and perhaps we are fortunate that we are already halfway there.
We can repackage ourselves, alter the name subtly and redefine *practical immortality* in scientific terms that describe rational methodologies to achieve significant longevity. Leave immortality as a goal to define *Objective perfection of the ideal* but focus on the pragmatic means for making definable steps in the right direction.
Immortality is the star we guide this ship by not purpose for building our pyramids. We need to distance ourselves from the mystical attributes of the word and establish a rational beachhead and step aside from the debate over the mystical, cultural, and *heroic* aspects of the ideal with all the élan of Woody Allen’s immortal quote:
“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.”
(Don)
Actually, let me try breaking that down again.
(1) Keep the name and the message exactly as is.
(2) Keep the name and tweek the message.
(3) Add on additional names and messages (sacrifices clarity and unity for coverage and defendability)
(4) Lose the name and change the message.
“Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen to be dressed for it.” (Woody Allen)
We can tweak the name and the message. If we lose the name we are backtracking and will dissipate more than we gain from the process. Let’s take a page from business and trim our name further, keep the principles, all while elaborating on them in more detail and modifying the message to be consistent.
We have come close when calling ourselves Imminst. I think it is important to *own the meme* but we can describe practical and scientific immortality in rational terms ONLY and clarify that we are talking about *longevity* and *maximal lifespan*.
For example what about shortening the nickname to I&I.org and expanding the message in our meme to focus on science, longevity, and life extension?
#120
Posted 07 June 2006 - 09:28 PM
Is there a pragmatic visionary among you who can create the armature of an easy to understand but very useful gambit/initiative around which others can align enthusiastically...and which efficiently supports the mission.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users