Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

question...exercising???

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
... - 18 Aug 2007 13:57 GMT
I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
off-limits due to my poor vision. I'm otherwise fit for the job. I have
myopia.
I was thinking about it the other day though... I remember, vaguely, a few
infomercials I've seen up late at night on the tv over the past few years...
I seem to remember hearing about these guys who did "eye exercises" that
lead them to naturally, "miraculously heal" their vision back to 20/20, and
they went on to become pilots, or I think one of them became an optometrist.
Anyways, I was just doing a little research and I thought this might be a
good place to get some differing opinions. So, please, how do you feel about
exercises to better your vision and eyesight, and if you know of any that
work, which ones are they? How do you know they work?
Thank you,
Kevin
otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Aug 2007 14:53 GMT
Dear Kevin,

Subject:  Asking and "explosive" question.

There is a body of knowledge, and a group that
object to the "standard" over-prescribed minus.

So call this group of "objecters" -- the second-opinion.

The second-opinion SUGGESTS that prevention
is possible, under specific circumstances.

You can read about this professional judgment about prevention
(at the threshold) at:

www.chinamyopia.org

I am certain that you will hear about how PREVENTION
IS IMPOSSIBLE -- by any method.

This will be presented by the majority-opinion ODs
who disagree with second-opinion ODs on this subject.

Enjoy,

Otis

> I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
> always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Thank you,
> Kevin
Neil Brooks - 18 Aug 2007 17:29 GMT
On Aug 18, 8:57 am, "..." <religiopla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
> > always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
> > off-limits due to my poor vision. I'm otherwise fit for the job. I have
> > myopia.

On Aug 18, 6:53 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Subject:  Asking and "explosive" question.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> This will be presented by the majority-opinion ODs
> who disagree with second-opinion ODs on this subject.

He's already myopic, Otis.

Prevention isn't going to mean much to him at this point.
Kisame Hoshigaki - 18 Aug 2007 17:53 GMT
Hi Neil,

I think that Otis's use of the word: prevention means prevention of
myopia which is 'over the threshold' or something.

I don't think he meant that prevention is impossible altogether with
myopia.

So long as you are not worse than around 20/60.

But I'm not sure, actually. All this plus prevention is confusing
stuff!
Neil Brooks - 18 Aug 2007 18:06 GMT
On Aug 18, 9:53 am, Kisame Hoshigaki
<absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think that Otis's use of the word: prevention means prevention of
> myopia which is 'over the threshold' or something.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> But I'm not sure, actually. All this plus prevention is confusing
> stuff!

So ... here we have yet ANOTHER person (or in this case multiple
personalities) attempting to explain Otis?

At some point, it would be nice (novel, at least) if OTIS were to
attempt to explain his own statements.
Kisame Hoshigaki - 18 Aug 2007 18:21 GMT
>At some point, it would be nice (novel, at least) if OTIS were to
>attempt to explain his own statements.

He does explain, he just does it differently.  I mean, you sort of
have to find the answers in what he writes, even though he won't give
the straight answer to you.

Yeah I know that Otis answers stuff really indirectly and everything,
but maybe that is just the way he learnt to write. And he makes loads
of weird spelling mistakes, like writing 'is' instead of 'his' or
'and' instead of 'an'.

I mean, I think that he might not be a native speaker of English.
Mike Tyner - 18 Aug 2007 19:52 GMT
> I seem to remember hearing about these guys who did "eye exercises" that
> lead them to naturally, "miraculously heal" their vision back to 20/20,
> and they went on to become pilots, or I think one of them became an
> optometrist.

I'd like to meet some of those. I never had much luck eliminating myopia
with exercises.

> Anyways, I was just doing a little research and I thought this might be a
> good place to get some differing opinions. So, please, how do you feel
> about exercises to better your vision and eyesight, and if you know of any
> that work, which ones are they? How do you know they work?

The biggest and best one offered in recent years was the "See Clearly"
method. Unfortunately, they offered a satisfaction guarantee, and so many
people wrote in wanting refunds that they couldn't keep up and they went out
of business. Here's a news release from the Iowa Dept of Justice:

DES MOINES.   The Polk County District Court has ordered Vision Improvement
Technologies, Inc., to stop all sales immediately of its so-called natural
vision improvement kit called the "See Clearly Method." The Court also
ordered the Fairfield company to pay $200,000 for consumer restitution.(Copy
of the Consent Judgment.)

Doctors say that many young people have some "muscle tone" that contributes
a little (or a lot) to their myopia. These folks are able to "relax away"
some amount of nearsightedness. But after age 30 or so, natural loss of
flexibility accomplishes the same thing. Lots of myopes "improve"
spontaneously in their late 20s and 30s.

This accommodative myopia is enough to lend credence to "natural vision
improvement" programs, but nobody has shown those procedures to be effective
when compared to untreated controls. If it worked, the benefits should be
easy to demonstrate. Instead, all of the "supporting data" consists of
anecdotes and uncontrolled trials.

The prototype of this quackery is a 1929 book called "Perfect Sight Without
Glasses" by W. H. Bates. If you want a good example of the sloppy reasoning
behind these techniques, track down that book.

-MT
Dan Abel - 18 Aug 2007 21:14 GMT
> > I seem to remember hearing about these guys who did "eye exercises" that
> > lead them to naturally, "miraculously heal" their vision back to 20/20,
> > and they went on to become pilots, or I think one of them became an
> > optometrist.

Actually, I think they become fiction writers.


> I'd like to meet some of those. I never had much luck eliminating myopia
> with exercises.

But some people make money by selling books about it.
otisbrown@pa.net - 19 Aug 2007 03:14 GMT
The "See Clearly" method is on the web FOR FREE.

See:

http://www.visiontherapy.net/

Enjoy,

Otis

> > I seem to remember hearing about these guys who did "eye exercises" that
> > lead them to naturally, "miraculously heal" their vision back to 20/20,
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> -MT
spammer - 19 Aug 2007 03:17 GMT
On Aug 18, 10:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> The "See Clearly" method is on the web FOR FREE.

 Just because it's free now doesn't mean it's not a scam.
otisbrown@pa.net - 19 Aug 2007 03:23 GMT
Also, you will find Dr. Bate's book at:

http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/

Opinions differ as to whether nearsightedness is PREVENTABLE,
or not.

But these methods have the best probability of success
if they are started BEFORE you begin wearing that
wretched minus lens.

Best,

Otis

On Aug 18, 10:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> The "See Clearly" method is on the web FOR FREE.
>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Aug 2007 03:49 GMT
On Aug 18, 9:23 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> But these methods have the best probability of success
> if they are started BEFORE you begin wearing that
> wretched minus lens.

What exactly is the probability of THAT success, Otis?  Hmmmm?

Enquiring minds want to know.  Don't keep it a secret, and don't give
us more circular reasoning.

DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 19 Aug 2007 04:33 GMT
Dear Dr. L,

Subject:  The probability that you can clear your Snellen,
under your control.

Well, as any Bates advocate will tell you -- that depends
on the person's motivation and effort in vision-clearing.

It is like asking if an obese person can lose weight.

Or is there a "guaranteed" diet that is always successful?

The answer to that question never depends on you or me.

It depends on the motivation and insights of the person
himself.

I hope you understand this issue.

Otis

> On Aug 18, 9:23 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> DrG
Neil Brooks - 19 Aug 2007 04:55 GMT
On Aug 18, 8:33 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Well, as any Bates advocate will tell you -- that depends
> on the person's motivation and effort in vision-clearing.

So ... what's wrong with your niece (or YOU (or Steve Leung, for that
matter)), Joyce V. Benson?

Lazy ... or just not smart enough??

TIA,

Neil
Mike Tyner - 19 Aug 2007 05:00 GMT
> Well, as any Bates advocate will tell you -- that depends
> on the person's motivation and effort in vision-clearing.

So we can't blame YOU when it doesn't work...

-MT
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Aug 2007 06:01 GMT
On Aug 18, 10:33 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
your control.

> Well, as any Bates advocate will tell you -- that depends
> on the person's motivation and effort in vision-clearing.

Personally, I have yet to meet a nearsighted person who likes their
condition.  One would think that given the aversion to wearing
eyeglasses that more of them would undergo spontaneous cures.  But,
they don't.  Perhaps the amount of motivation required exceeds what
the average person can muster.  Or, perhaps your understanding of the
matter is incomplete.

DrG
John H. - 19 Aug 2007 08:21 GMT
> On Aug 18, 10:33 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> your control.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> DrG

I've read many accounts of people who claimed to have achieved incredible
results and have no substantive reason to doubt their claims. However it
seems to be a minority group, some specific subset, that appears to benefit.
With regard to "alternative approaches" generally it is not that uncommon to
find that the therapy does have some value for some people. Acupuncture,
based as it is on "meridian lines", clearly does work, but its utility is
quite limited. Some respond to a drug, others don't, we often don't know
why. Some people have success with vision exercises, most don't. We don't
know why. I say to people: worked for me but I'm a special case. Try it but
you must try it with discipline. It is also worth remembering that on the
internet there is a cure for everything.

PS: your argument could be applied to a multitude of conditions: people
would rather take insulin than change their lifestyle and diet to get rid of
Type 2 diabetes, people will take a statin with side effects rather than get
enough exercise in spite of the fact that statins do not decrease overall
mortality. We're strange creatures like that.

This whole forum is being wasted on all this sh.t. It is a minor issue but
some have turned it into the be all and end all of sci.med.vision. Stop it,
there are many more interesting issues to explore.
Neil Brooks - 19 Aug 2007 15:58 GMT
> This whole forum is being wasted on all this sh.t. It is a minor issue but
> some have turned it into the be all and end all of sci.med.vision. Stop it,

How?
John H. - 20 Aug 2007 06:23 GMT
Just tired of it Neil. Remember in our last discussion you raised a study of
USAF staff whose myopia varied over a 2 year period. That I am interested
in. Or how macular pucker can cause curvature in the visual experience, I
wonder if that suggests some sort of 3d analysis occurring at the retinal
level. That I am interested in.

Too many forums have been destroyed by obsessions. This is a good forum with
some good professional people here. My experience is that the latter group
tend to tire of the obessions and move away. Don't want that to happen here.

John.

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > This whole forum is being wasted on all this sh.t. It is a minor issue but
> > some have turned it into the be all and end all of sci.med.vision. Stop it,
>
> How?
Neil Brooks - 20 Aug 2007 16:19 GMT
> Just tired of it Neil. Remember in our last discussion you raised a study of
> USAF staff whose myopia varied over a 2 year period. That I am interested
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> some good professional people here. My experience is that the latter group
> tend to tire of the obessions and move away. Don't want that to happen here.

If you look at my recent posting history, you'll see that we are on
exactly the same page about this.

It all comes down to one well-entrenched troll here: Otis Brown.

Help us get rid of that one and the forum will have a MUCH, MUCH
higher signal-to-noise ratio.

Guaranteed.
Zetsu - 20 Aug 2007 16:28 GMT
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> It all comes down to one well-entrenched troll here: Otis Brown.

It doesn't. You can't start laying all the blame on just one person,
and trying to hide that you don't contribute to the noise a lot
yourself. Imagine if Otis was really just playing a prank on you all;
I mean imagine that he didn't really believe in the plus and he is
just posting here with the purpose of stirring some heat and ruining
the discussion. Would it still make sense to pretend that Otis is the
cause of all this? You can't think like this. This is the internet,
where mad people thrive. If you are going to go on trying to vanquish
Otis, you just make yourself look weak and susceptible; easily
provoked.

> Help us get rid of that one and the forum will have a MUCH, MUCH
> higher signal-to-noise ratio.
>
> Guaranteed.
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Aug 2007 16:03 GMT
> > On Aug 18, 10:33 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> > your control.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> you must try it with discipline. It is also worth remembering that on the
> internet there is a cure for everything.

I believe that acupuncture has been better investigated and documented
than these spurious cases of miraculous vision recovery.  Anyhow, any
bonfide case of myopia reversal has an explanation.  The explanation
must take into account the fact that the myopia was not true axial
myopia in the first place.

> PS: your argument could be applied to a multitude of conditions: people
> would rather take insulin than change their lifestyle and diet to get rid of
> Type 2 diabetes, people will take a statin with side effects rather than get
> enough exercise in spite of the fact that statins do not decrease overall
> mortality. We're strange creatures like that.

Myopes don't go blind or die if they don't wear their correction.
I've seen plenty of cases, especially in children, where the glasses
are not worn, but the child's vision did not improve.

> This whole forum is being wasted on all this sh.t. It is a minor issue but
> some have turned it into the be all and end all of sci.med.vision. Stop it,
> there are many more interesting issues to explore.

Myopia and its prevention and treatment are worthy topics for
discussion in a scientific forum.  The discussion is being held
captive by a few folks whose ideas belong on the junk heap of
scientific theories.

DrG
RT - 19 Aug 2007 17:12 GMT
> Myopia and its prevention and treatment are worthy topics for
> discussion in a scientific forum.  The discussion is being held
> captive by a few folks whose ideas belong on the junk heap of
> scientific theories.

And by those who stalk them.

Signature

~RT

p.clarkii@gmail.com - 21 Aug 2007 05:45 GMT
On Aug 18, 10:23 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Opinions differ as to whether nearsightedness is PREVENTABLE,
> or not.

Not really.  learned opinions are pretty consistent, as is the data.
and we could care less about Keith or what Raphaelson would say.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 20 Aug 2007 12:05 GMT
On Aug 18, 10:14 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> The "See Clearly" method is on the web FOR FREE.
>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> > -MT

maybe its free now, but those scum-bags were selling that method with
a money-back guarantee and then they wouldn't stand by their guarantee
(when the purchaser failed to improve their vision:  surprise-- it
doesn't work!).  that's how the State of Iowa got involved, via
consumer complaints, and then their further investigations into the
validity of this method also unturned the fact that it has not been
proven AT ALL and that parts of it have even been clearly proven to be
invalid.

just some dirt bags that were trying to make money off of people's
false hopes that they could be cured.  Otis and clan don't try to make
money, but they do make false claims and foster false hopes.  in
particular, plus lens prevention is a method that has CLEARLY been
shown to not work.
Kakuzu - 20 Aug 2007 13:50 GMT
I can't even believe I'm saying this, but that dweeb p.clar is RIGHT.

The See Clearly Method is A LOAD OF TWADDLE CRAP.
Also the Plus lens prevention is a load of BS STUPIDITY.

The only real cure is the one that William Horatio Bates invented.
And all distortions, derivations, and corruptions of the Original
Bates System are STUPID FRAUD NONSENSE SCAMS, WHICH SHOULD BE
DESTROYED, ALONG WITH THE LUDACRIS BUSINESS OF OPTOMETRY WITH THE
GLASSES AND LASIK.
Kakuzu - 20 Aug 2007 13:56 GMT
And I forgot one things:

DON'T LISTEN TO THAT DWEEB ANDREW, HE DOESN'T KNOW A THING ABOUT THE
ORIGINAL BATES SYSTEM, he is just CORRUPTING it with his crap about
personality and nonsense. So DISREGARD everything he says. The proof
that everything he says is CRAP is known because he is STILL myopic.
He can't even cure himself, that's how crap his method is. So, just
ignore him and his filth and understand that he is a very bad
representative of the real original Bates method.
lena102938 - 19 Aug 2007 05:19 GMT
>This accommodative myopia is enough to lend credence to "natural vision
>improvement" programs, but nobody has shown those procedures to be effective
>when compared to untreated controls. If it worked, the benefits should be
>easy to demonstrate. Instead, all of the "supporting data" consists of
>anecdotes and uncontrolled trials.

Refractive changes associated with oblique viewing and reading in myopes and
emmetropes  by Hema Radhakrishnan, W. Neil Charman “

( I think you know that, I did not) :

“Myopes have been found to have a relatively hyperopic peripheral refraction,
and hyperopes have relatively myopic peripheral refractive errors (Millodot,
1981; Mutti, Mitchell, Moeschberger, Jones, & Zadnik, 2002; Seidemann,
Schaeffel, Guirao, Lopez-Gil, & Artal, 2002).”
http://journalofvision.org/7/8/5/article.aspx

Article not about that, but very interesting by itself.

Baltimore myopia project:  exercise- refraction did not change but  acuity
improved.
Probably, I writing probably
Participants , which acuity improved,  just trained brains to use more info
from retina peripheral, they can make it because of  their overrall
refraction pattern.
Multifocal contacts use the same principal, they modulate refraction
distribution, refraction different
in different concentric zones
brain just make the picture.

Frankly , I am not really sure that I understand this correctly:
“Myopes have been found to have a relatively hyperopic peripheral refraction"

Optometric regular refractometer measures this peripheral refraction ?

Lena
Mike Tyner - 19 Aug 2007 06:09 GMT
> Frankly , I am not really sure that I understand this correctly:
> "Myopes have been found to have a relatively hyperopic peripheral
> refraction"

Imagine an image that is only clear in the center, and blurry at the edges.

> Optometric regular refractometer measures this peripheral refraction ?

Of course not.

But even with lenses, the eye is limited to only one focal plane at a time.

Peripheral blur is better than central blur, most people would say.

-MT
MsBraimy - 19 Aug 2007 06:17 GMT
>Peripheral blur is better than central blur, most people would say.
>
>-MT

Generally yes, unless you have an extreme case of tunnel vision.  I had a
friend with such condition and he is practically blind.

Signature

MsBrainy

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 20 Aug 2007 07:05 GMT
> I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
> always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
> off-limits due to my poor vision. I'm otherwise fit for the job.

Hi Kevin

To be a fighter pilot you need a certain kind of mental aptitude.  You
can get near to imagining what it must be like landing on a heaving
carrier at night in the rain when you are tired.  Very few people are
able to maintain the mental control to be able to retain their trained
skills and yet remain able to react to the changing and difficult
conditions of such a landing so that they have the benefit of good
habits and yet are also able to remain adaptive.

Exercise alone does not make a healthy body or give an individual the
ability to land jets on a postage stamp in the ocean.   You know that
of course.

The question that is relevant here is there a connection between how a
person reacts and feels and the vision they get?

If you put two apparently similar people in a very difficult situation
one will become dis-stressed and another remains able to function more
or less unchanged.

My advise to you is if you want to become a navy fighter pilot is that
you need to learn what it is these guys and girls are able to do that
currently you cannot do.  And then get better and better at that
skill.    It is related to ability to think clearly and calmly.   It
is related to ability to not get distracted by tiny details but
instead have the ability to also see the bigger picture of what is
happening.  The ability to look forwards rather than worrying about
what just happened or *might* have just happened.  Worry is not an
option!  The past has to be released to focus on the present to get
down safely onto a carrier deck.  How good are you at focusing on the
present moment in a relaxed manner?  Perhaps that is a learnt
skill?     Also projecting bad future outcomes as possibilities that
your mind gets hooked on will not allow you land a jet in bad
conditions or out manoever the enemy.   To fly at that kind of level
all of your mental abilities have to be as best as a human can do be
focused in the present moment for nearly all of the time.

Vision is much more than only an event that happens in your
eyeballs.    It involves a major part of your mental processing.

So.......physical exercise alone is not the answer.    Something more
than just something physical is required.   But healthy mind means
healthy body.  There is a relationship of some sort to the physical
body.

To be a navy pilot you need to like a navy pilot in all respects.
You can potentially do that.   You just need to figure out how.    A
part of the solution is to be comfortable in your physical body
without excessively thinking about that.     Ie less thought and
concern and more confidance and security in yourself while also being
adaptive and ready to change as new information arrives.

Andrew
MsBrainy - 20 Aug 2007 07:25 GMT
>> I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
>> always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
>Andrew

Come on, Andrew, he just asked for advice regarding eye exercise to improve
his vision, not regarding personal improvement otherwise.  You sound like a
patronizing preacher.

Signature

MsBrainy

andrewedwardjudd@gmail.com - 20 Aug 2007 11:07 GMT
Ms Brainy

I note in your profile that you describe yourself as lazy arrogant and
sarcastic.   Most people would not want to admit that so at least you
are being honest about it.   But why be so unnecessarily nasty and
boast about it?    I cant see it makes any sense for you.  How can
it?   As humans we value relationships with others one way or
another.  Being hateful or superior towards others does a person no
good at all in the longer run of their lives.  Surely??

I also note that on two times now you have referred to me firstly as
being smug and now as patronizing.

I was answering Kevins question in good faith.

He said:

"I was just doing a little research and I thought this might be a
good place to get some differing opinions. So, please, how do you feel
about
exercises to better your vision and eyesight,"

My answer is my honest opinion of what i think about the chances of
exercises being helpful to him.

I regard myself as an OK person who is  easy to get along with but if
you persist in distorting my character I think it is saying more about
your own self confessed arrogance and belief you are a superior person
than it is says anything much about me at all.

And also rather than being lazy how about making the effort to
understand a persons point of view before you assume it is your
brainyness that decides rightness or wrongness or the appropriateness
of another posters answer to their questions.

You are really not showing yourself in a good light here at all.

Regards

Andrew
Dan Abel - 20 Aug 2007 16:44 GMT
> > I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every day. I
> > always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but definitely
> > off-limits due to my poor vision. I'm otherwise fit for the job.

> To be a navy pilot you need to like a navy pilot in all respects.
> You can potentially do that.   You just need to figure out how.

To do certain things you have to pass a vision screening exam.  If you
don't pass, you don't even get a chance to prove what you can do.

In order to get a license to drive my car I have to take a vision
screening test.  If I can't prove to the DMV that I can see well enough
to drive, then I don't get a license.
Scott Seidman - 20 Aug 2007 14:18 GMT
> I work in a community where I deal with naval fighter pilots every
> day. I always considered their careers exciting and fun-looking, but
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> which ones are they? How do you know they work? Thank you,
> Kevin

You don't hear those ads anymore, because the FDA shut them down.

Signature

Scott
Reverse name to reply

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.