• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Actresses, prominent business owners charged in nationwide college admissions cheating scandal

pamak said:
If you do not object to parents using their wealth to secure their kids' admission to universities, you essentially condone the practice of having certain kids beat their competitors by using to their advantage their family's wealth instead of using solely their intellect and performance. Is this meritocratic?
Click to expand...
  • I've been quite clear about the limits of that with which I can acquiesce. If you cannot, in crafting your hypothetical (of sorts) accurately paraphrase my words without discarding their connotation and denotation of the ideas they express, then please don't paraphrase them.
    • If the parents, [to matriculate their kids at a given school], in the right way do so, I don't have a problem with their using their wealth to secure their kids' admission. The way(s) the parents involved in the matter for which they've now been indicted was not among the right ways, and I don't condone the parents' having used such modes to get their kids admitted to the respective schools. (Post 108)
    • I don't like that folks can donate a bundle and get their kid admitted, but I understand that a school isn't likely to snub someone who so spends their coin. Accordingly, I can acquiesce to the happenstance when it occurs. As you noted, at least such donors/parents (perhaps the students too) aren't trying to pretend their kids are "all that" and thus got admitted to "Posh U." (Post 42)
    • I wouldn't be okay with bribery of any sort. Bribery is criminal; I don't condone criminal conduct.

      The difference is that [the] "usual" way of doing things, if one feels one must, lacks the quid pro quo concomitant with bribery. One merely makes the donation and trusts that it's enough to get one's kid admitted. (Post 3)
    I carefully select my diction to aptly, accurately and completely communicate my thoughts. I don't appreciate your (or anyone else's) attempting to "spin" my remarks so they convey ideas I didn't express or imply; moreover, it's a waste of both our times for me to have to keep correcting your doing so. I don't need you to tell me what I think; I know what I think, and I'm not shy about sharing my thoughts.
 
nota bene said:
A "helicopter parent" is one hovers, one who is excessively focused on his or her child's education, activities, and/or social life. And "child" is important; I never thought I'd live to see the day when this became a thing at the college level. It is, though, with parents phoning profs to ask about grades and class performance when FERPA prevents such a conversation (and sometimes appearing out of nowhere at the prof's office) and also deans.

So while there are many mature students, including 15 and 16-year olds, and many more who are age-appropriate immature, there are also some who are cases of arrested development who are a burden to deal with.

From Psychology Today:

Only a few studies have examined the effects of helicopter parenting. It is a relatively new cultural phenomenon, at least on a large scale (there have always been overbearing parents, but they were a rarity, and we used to laugh at them). It takes time to realize that something fundamental in parenting has shifted and time for scientists to suspect that it may cause problems, and more time for them to pinpoint and define the elements of intrusive parenting so that they can then study its effects. That is just now happening. Leading the charge is Chris Segrin of the University of Arizona, along with Michelle Givertz of Cal State at Chico and Neil Montgomery of Keene State College.

...Now that there are validated criteria defining overparenting, other researchers can study its effects. In the meantime, the latest study by Chris Segrin and colleagues shows that overparenting young adults breeds narcissism and poor coping skiils. Helicopter Parenting—It's Worse Than You Think | Psychology Today
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Saladin4 said:
Hard to find...Cohen and trump's goons tried to hide them
Click to expand...
If they are "too hard" for you to find why don't you post us a link to Obama's grades. I'm sure they will be easy to find....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Xelor said:
From "Actresses, prominent business owners charged in nationwide college admissions cheating scandal":

Dozens of people have been charged in a nationwide college admissions cheating and athletic recruitment scheme, federal officials announced Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling said 50 people have been charged in the alleged scheme, including 33 parents who “paid enormous sums” to guarantee their children’s admission into elite schools.

Prominent entertainers, business owners and college coaches are implicated in the scandal that involves boosting SAT scores and bribing college administrators, according to the criminal complaint.

Prosecutors say parents paid admissions consultant William Singer, of Newport Beach, Calif., $25 million from 2011 through Feb. 2019 to bribe coaches and administrators to label their children as recruited athletes to boost their chances of getting into schools.
​

According to information provided by FBI/DoJ officials in the press conference aired live on CNN, the parents, on average, paid between $250K and $400K for Singer's services. (I can't find the live coverage online, only an article.) The maximum sum spent was ~$6M.

The NY Post reports that one parent paid $500K to have "their two daughters designated as recruits to the USC crew team — despite the fact that they did not participate in crew — thereby facilitating their admission to USC." Other parents paid to have an associate of Singer's to obtain a given SAT exam score.



What I find most astounding about this cabal of college entrance corruption is that it appears a fair quantity of the parents who participated in it spent sums that, were they done the way wealthy folks have for ages ensured their academically mediocre kids admission to prestigious institutions -- by making a generous donation -- they'd have spent about the same sum and not be facing prosecution.

I mean, really. If one's got half a million or more to "blow," donate it to help fund a teaching award, endow a chair or help renovate a wing or hallway or something. The school will admit one's child in return.
Click to expand...

Probably how Trump got his education. Mummy and daddy make sure richly rich boy gets a diploma. He has a degree in economics and does not appear to know diddle about it.
 
Xelor said:
  • I've been quite clear about the limits of that with which I can acquiesce. If you cannot, in crafting your hypothetical (of sorts) accurately paraphrase my words without discarding their connotation and denotation of the ideas they express, then please don't paraphrase them.
    • If the parents, [to matriculate their kids at a given school], in the right way do so, I don't have a problem with their using their wealth to secure their kids' admission. The way(s) the parents involved in the matter for which they've now been indicted was not among the right ways, and I don't condone the parents' having used such modes to get their kids admitted to the respective schools. (Post 108)
    • I don't like that folks can donate a bundle and get their kid admitted, but I understand that a school isn't likely to snub someone who so spends their coin. Accordingly, I can acquiesce to the happenstance when it occurs. As you noted, at least such donors/parents (perhaps the students too) aren't trying to pretend their kids are "all that" and thus got admitted to "Posh U." (Post 42)
    • I wouldn't be okay with bribery of any sort. Bribery is criminal; I don't condone criminal conduct.

      The difference is that [the] "usual" way of doing things, if one feels one must, lacks the quid pro quo concomitant with bribery. One merely makes the donation and trusts that it's enough to get one's kid admitted. (Post 3)
    I carefully select my diction to aptly, accurately and completely communicate my thoughts. I don't appreciate your (or anyone else's) attempting to "spin" my remarks so they convey ideas I didn't express or imply; moreover, it's a waste of both our times for me to have to keep correcting your doing so. I don't need you to tell me what I think; I know what I think, and I'm not shy about sharing my thoughts.
Click to expand...

In your long response, you did not answer my question: so, I will repeat it!

Originally Posted by pamak

If you do not object to parents using their wealth to secure their kids' admission to universities, you essentially condone the practice of having certain kids beat their competitors by using to their advantage their family's wealth instead of using solely their intellect and performance. Is this meritocratic?


Try this time to give a response on the point I challenge you and explain if it is meritocratic or not to have students get their parents' help to secure positions in universities!
I do not tell you what you think. I claim you that the consequences of what you think undermine meritocracy.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
In your long response, you did not answer my question: so, I will repeat it!

Originally Posted by pamak

If you do not object to parents using their wealth to secure their kids' admission to universities, you essentially condone the practice of having certain kids beat their competitors by using to their advantage their family's wealth instead of using solely their intellect and performance. Is this meritocratic?


Try this time to give a response on the point I challenge you...
Click to expand...

Your asking the same question informs me that over your head went the point of my initial response to it. You're damn right I didn't answer the question you posed. Had the point of my response not elided your notice, you'd know damn well why.
 
MauiMan said:
Probably how Trump got his education. Mummy and daddy make sure richly rich boy gets a diploma. He has a degree in economics and does not appear to know diddle about it.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't really have an economics degree, but his degree does say "economics" on it. Click here to understand why I say that. That notwithstanding, you're correct that he is demonstrably bereft of even rudimentary comprehension of economics principles.
 
Xelor said:
Your asking the same question informs me that over your head went the point of my initial response to it. You're damn right I didn't answer the question you posed. Had the point of my response not elided your notice, you'd know damn well why.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you are not willing to answer the question, I claim that you expose the weakness of your argument!

The question was polite and reasonable, so stop giving me the attitude that you are somehow offended
If you are, you have an attitude problem!
 
Xelor said:
Trump doesn't really have an economics degree, but his degree does say "economics" on it. Click here to understand why I say that. That notwithstanding, you're correct that he is demonstrably bereft of even rudimentary comprehension of economics principles.
Click to expand...

OMG, that explains a lot.
 
pamak said:
Well, as long as you are not willing to answer the question, I claim that you expose the weakness of your argument!

The question was polite and reasonable, so stop giving me the attitude that you are somehow offended
If you are, you have an attitude problem!
Click to expand...

Red:
Well, whatever...you just do...
 
TurtleDude said:
The last time I looked, legacies at some elite universities had higher GPAs than other students.
Click to expand...

Low-SAT Legacies Receive Lower GPAs |News |The Harvard Crimson

A study by two Princeton sociologists has found that students admitted to colleges primarily because of their legacy status are more likely to face academic difficulty than students admitted primarily because they are athletes or members of ethnic minorities.

Legacy students whose SAT scores are below the average scores of their peers earn consistently lower grade point averages in college—a phenomenon not experienced by minorities or athletes, according to the study.
Click to expand...

Legacy students can get into college with a lower SAT score than everyone else - Business Insider

Of the 3,478 profiles which responded to the legacy question, legacy profiles scored 1870 on the SAT versus 1943 for nonlegacy students.

The trend remained for students who were accepted into top 25 schools (as ranked by the US News & World Report), where legacy students scored 2133 versus 2156 for nonlegacy students.
Click to expand...

Your turn. :)
 
Hatuey said:
Low-SAT Legacies Receive Lower GPAs |

News |

The Harvard Crimson



Legacy students can get into college with a lower SAT score than everyone else - Business Insider



Your turn. :)
Click to expand...

I am telling you what I knew when I was in college. BTW legacies almost always do better-in elite schools-then minorities. The problem with your claim is it assumes that legacies have lower SATs.

Legacy students whose SAT scores are below the average scores of their peers earn consistently lower grade point averages in college—a phenomenon not experienced by minorities or athletes, according to the study.

That assumes that legacies who were admitted all had lower scores. It doesn't talk about legacies who had average or above average SAT scores.

The study you cited confirmed that

The study did not, however, show that legacy admits tended to perform worse overall. The disparity applies only to those admitted with lower-than-average SAT scores.

At Harvard, SAT scores for Harvard legacy students are “virtually identical” to those of the rest of the student body, Harvard College Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 said. He said that the admissions committee looks beyond SAT results in deciding whom to accept.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am telling you what I knew when I was in college.
Click to expand...

Lol, okay so we going to start off with you pedalling back.

Alright, let's say you knew your everyone's GPA scores (highly unlikely but let's assume it is true) in your class, and legacies were higher than non-legacies. How would that be reflective of anything other than your class? Let me guess. Let's say you knew the GPAs of every student that wasn't in your program, and you had enough to connections to know the GPAs of every other student in your university. How would you have access to the GPA scores of every other university in the US?

Is that where this conversation is going, TD? To you having access to the GPAs of every legacy student in America?

Don't be goofy.

The problem with your claim is it assumes that legacies have lower SATs.
Click to expand...

Yikes. There is no assumption here:

Legacy students can get into college with a lower SAT score than everyone else - Business Insider

Of the 3,478 profiles which responded to the legacy question, legacy profiles scored 1870 on the SAT versus 1943 for nonlegacy students.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the effort, TD - but when you make BS claims, they need some sort of evidence other than 'I know'. Your post started off with a blatant lie, one that at best could be supported by maybe a study, but a study showing slight SAT/GPA differences, with gigantic consequences on odds of admission.

Double down. I want you to.
 
Last edited:
MauiMan said:
OMG, that explains a lot.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, it does explain a good deal, but not everything. For instance:
  • It doesn't explain his hewing to his benighted notion about the efficacy of supply-side taxation tactics implemented in "times of plenty," so to speak. The basics he learned in principles of macro and micro, combined with calculus, are enough for him to have understood that supply-side taxation tactics are beneficial and have a reasonably good chance of yielding the "advertised" economic and government revenue impacts when an economy is at or near its cyclical nadir; however at the other end of the economic cycle, they return but short-run placebic returns.
  • It doesn't explain his utter disregard for the very well established impacts of tariffs and subsidies. There again, the content of either micro or macro economics are enough for him to have known his tariffs were going to "screw" multiple sectors of the US economies and all but the largest the players in those sectors. Furthermore and from the same course, he should have known that his ostensibly tariff-detriment abating subsidy was going to not only propagate further the problem throughout the US economy, but also create a new problem in yet another sector of the economy, as well as exacerbate the hardship on the farmers already pushed near ruin by the dumbass tariff the subsidy is supposed to attenuate.
  • It partially explains his insanity regarding immigration and labor economics, but only partially. There again, the content of the two core principles courses is enough for a truly smart person, one who also takes the time to put their mind to extrapolating the principles there to the matter of immigration economics, to discern minimally that the approaches Trump's advocated are likely ill conceived and bereft any cogent/sound basis for thinking they'd "work." That realization would move a bright person to delve more deeply into the matter, and after doing so, s/he would find that indeed the approach Trump's been pushing is absurd.

    Even, however, if his meager principles-level economics training didn't move him thus, his fundamental accountancy, if not arithmetic, instruction should have shown him the utter absurdity of pressing policy that bids to spend taxpayer funds to curtail a behavior that actually boosts the country's GDP. I mean, really. Who the hell thinks it's a good idea to spend money whereby, upon achieving the end for which one spent the money, the result is that one generates less income/productivity?

    I'll tell you who. People who undeservedly obtained their college credentials...people who, for whatever lack of acumen they demonstrated in high school, failed to "step up their game" by doing the hard work needed to excel and instead wasted the learning opportunity there were given when Daddy "donated" to obtain their matriculation at whatever college they attended.
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, okay so we going to start off with you pedalling back.

Alright, let's say you knew your everyone's GPA scores (highly unlikely but let's assume it is true) in your classes, and legacies were higher than non-legacies. How would that be reflective of anything other than your class? Let me guess. Let's say you knew the GPAs of every student that wasn't in your program, and you had enough to connections to know the GPAs of every other student in your university. How would you have access to the GPA scores of every other university in the US?

Is that where this conversation is going, TD? To you having access to the GPAs of every legacy student in America?

Don't be goofy.



Yikes. There is no assumption here:

Legacy students can get into college with a lower SAT score than everyone else - Business Insider



I appreciate the effort, TD - but when you make BS claims, they need some sort of evidence other than 'I know'. Your post started off with a blatant lie, one that at best could be supported by maybe a study, but a study showing slight SAT differences, with gigantic consequences on odds of admission.

Double down. I want you to.
Click to expand...

You seem confused

I was speaking about my experience in college. I also spoke as to my experience as a varsity Ivy league coach who was trying to convince kids to play for my team rather than say Penn's or Princeton's.

and I used your study. It showed Legacies didn't do worse than other students. It showed legacies with lower SAT scores than others might have. That's a big DUH.

But let me ask you this

what sort of kids are parents who got into the top schools on their own merit likely to end up as? I would bet, Kids whose parents were top of their classes in HS are more likely to be competitive at top colleges than kids whose parents didn't do very well in HS and then college.

what do you think?
 
TurtleDude said:
You seem confused
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm fine - just trying to get you to admit that your perception isn't representative of anything. There isn't enough name dropping one can do to avoid simple studies.

and I used your study. It showed Legacies didn't do worse than other students. It showed legacies with lower SAT scores than others might have. That's a big DUH.
Click to expand...

If this had been your argument, we'd be discussing it. That's why I chose to discuss the very specific claim that at some point, when you looked, GPAs were higher for legacy students. They weren't because 30-40 years ago, nobody studied this stuff so as not to bother the imaginary world where legacies actually did better.

Your inability to come up with any sort of academic information to back up your claims is funny.

Do some name dropping when all else fails.

:lol:
 
Hatuey said:
Nope, I'm fine - just trying to get you to admit that your perception isn't representative of anything. There isn't enough name dropping one can do to avoid simple studies.



If this had been your argument, we'd be discussing it. That's why I chose to discuss the very specific claim that at some point, when you looked, GPAs were higher for legacy students. They weren't because 30-40 years ago, nobody studied this stuff so as not to bother the imaginary world where legacies actually did better.

Your inability to come up with any sort of academic information to back up your claims is funny.

Do some name dropping when all else fails.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Not playing this stupid game. I made my point, you cannot refute it and I find affirmative action racist. You don't. nothing more to talk about. I don't care if you don't believe what I experienced in college. You weren't there, I was.
 
TurtleDude said:
Not playing this stupid game. I made my point, you cannot refute it
Click to expand...

I literally showed you the following:

1) Reported legacy students didn't do significantly better in the GPA section than non-legacy, they do about the same or worse.
2) This trend remains in the top 25 schools in the country.
3) Being a legacy significantly improves your odds of joining an university regardless of your GPA (by factors of 2 to 15 in some cases)

How are you still pretending your claim wasn't debunked? Because you knew people in college?

Lol, predictable.
 
Hatuey said:
I literally showed you the following:

1) Reported legacy students didn't do significantly better in the GPA section than non-legacy, they do about the same or worse.
2) This trend remains in the top 25 schools in the country.
3) Being a legacy significantly improves your odds of joining an university regardless of your GPA (by factors of 2 to 15 in some cases)

How are you still pretending your claim wasn't debunked? Because you knew people in college?

Lol, predictable.
Click to expand...

what year was that study based on?

what is predictable is trying to justify affirmative action while whining about legacies.
 
TurtleDude said:
what year was that study based on?
Click to expand...

Until you find contradictory evidence that amounts to more than claiming to not only know but also remember someone's GPA and legacy status in the 19......(60s?).... (70s?)... (80s?) and be able to compare it to hundreds of other people who never came into contact with you and were even less likely to tell you their GPA ....as well as literally thousands of others around the country who never met you... then your question will remain irrelevant.

There are no games here, TD.

You started talking, and what you're saying sounds really good, until one dives 1 inch beneath the surface and asks simple questions.
 
Hatuey said:
Until you find contradictory evidence that amounts to more than claiming to not only know but also remember someone's GPA and legacy status in the 19......(60s?).... (70s?)... (80s?) and be able to compare it to hundreds of other people who never came into contact with you and were even less likely to tell you their GPA ....as well as literally thousands of others around the country who never met you... then your question will remain irrelevant.

There are no games here, TD.

You started talking, and what you're saying sounds really good, until one dives 1 inch beneath the surface and asks simple questions.
Click to expand...

Who do you think does better at the Ivies=legacy students-many of whom would get in even if they weren't legacies or affirmative action acceptances. What do you think the percentage of say Yale students who graduate Summa Cum Laude or are inducted into Phi Beta Kappa who are legacies vs affirmative action recipients? Now I didn't know what each student's SAT score was unless they were close friends or they were someone others noted had a perfect score (three suitemates of mine for example) since that was fairly well known. But I do know who graduated SCL or was elected to PBK since that was listed publicly.
 
Hatuey said:
Low-SAT Legacies Receive Lower GPAs |News |The Harvard Crimson

Legacy students can get into college with a lower SAT score than everyone else - Business Insider

Your turn. :)
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
I am telling you what I knew when I was in college. BTW legacies almost always do better-in elite schools-then minorities. The problem with your claim is it assumes that legacies have lower SATs.

Legacy students whose SAT scores are below the average scores of their peers earn consistently lower grade point averages in college—a phenomenon not experienced by minorities or athletes, according to the study.

That assumes that legacies who were admitted all had lower scores. It doesn't talk about legacies who had average or above average SAT scores.

The study you cited confirmed that

The study did not, however, show that legacy admits tended to perform worse overall. The disparity applies only to those admitted with lower-than-average SAT scores.

At Harvard, SAT scores for Harvard legacy students are “virtually identical” to those of the rest of the student body, Harvard College Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 said. He said that the admissions committee looks beyond SAT results in deciding whom to accept.
Click to expand...


I think you two are over-generalizing on both ends of the matter about legacy students. I think that because there are different kinds of legacy students:
  1. "Regular" --> These kids come from comfortable families, but upon graduating, they yet have to make their own way in the world. Their folks may be well connected and able to help them get a good start to some degree, but mostly, it's the kids' own efforts that render their successes (and failures). These legacy kids need good grades just like everyone else.
  2. "Gentleman" --> These are kids who are going to school to say they went there and to some extent to learn something, but, so long as they graduate, their academic performance plays no role in what career path they're going to take. These kids are going to work in their family's business.
  3. "Elite" --> These kids come from megarich, powerful and/or old money families. These are the Bushes, Kennedys, Biddles, Ingersoll's, Cadwaladers, Melons, foreign royals, children of major industry titans, etc. They can and indeed do pretty much whatever they want. They may be "Gentleman's C" students, or they may be academic hard workers. It's really not possible to generalize about these kids intellect, drive, etc. About all one can say about these kids is that there aren't many of them, and no matter what they do, so long as they don't go to jail for murder or some other very public and heinous offense, they'll be just fine.


Red:
That's just code for "we admit whomever we damn well please using whatever criteria we see fit to use. Yes, we have certain standards, but if and when we want to make exceptions, we will." That "policy" exists at all competitive-admission colleges/universities.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Well, whatever...you just do...
Click to expand...

Then let me expand and answer the actual rhetorical question I used to expose the weakness of your position

Meritocracy | Definition of Meritocracy by Merriam-Webster

Definition of meritocracy

: a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement


Based on the above definition, a system which selects students over others by taking in consideration the wealth of the students' parents is a system which is not based on meritocracy.

Thus, a person who says the things that you said

Xelor said:
If the parents do so in the right way, I don't have a problem with their using their wealth to secure their kids' admission.
Click to expand...

is a person who does to have a problem with a system which is not based on meritocracy.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
Then let me expand and answer the actual rhetorical question I used to expose the weakness of your position

Meritocracy | Definition of Meritocracy by Merriam-Webster

Definition of meritocracy

: a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement


Based on the above definition, a system which selects students over others by taking in consideration the wealth of the students' parents is a system which is not based on meritocracy.

Thus, a person who says the things that you said

If the parents do so in the right way, I don't have a problem with their using their wealth to secure their kids' admission.
-- Xelor
Click to expand...

is a person who does to have a problem with a system which is not based on meritocracy.
Click to expand...

  1. People who know what a rhetorical question is don't pose rhetorical questions to others with the expectation of those others answering them.
  2. I understood quite well your remarks. That I did is why I didn't answer your question. Maybe, however, your explanation helped folks who didn't.
  3. What I or anyone asserts we have no problem with says nothing about what we do have a problem with. I think you don't understand what rational inferences can be made from positive and negative statements. I think you don't understand that because you've made an irrational inference about my negative assertion. I realize that to you it seems as though your inferred conclusion is the opposite of what I wrote and that it must therefore be so, but that's just not how it works.
    • "I have no problem with your wearing a white shirt to the party."
      • The above negative statement indicates that I'm okay with you wearing a white shirt to the party.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your wearing any other color shirt to the party.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your not wearing a shirt to the party.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your not wearing a shirt to any other event.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your wearing a white shirt to some other event.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your wearing any other garment of any other color to the party.
        • It gives no indication of what I think about your wearing any other garment of any other color to some event other than the party.
    • So, as I informed you, my diction is carefully chosen to express neither more nor less than what I pen, what thoughts have crossed my mind. And, as I also told you, I don't appreciate your trying to "spin" my carefully worded remarks into something they do not express and that I didn't state or imply.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom