[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 160

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 1:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

Read Rand's notes for The Fountainhead. She describes how her characters will act and what their psychologies and personalities would be like based on the ideas they subscribe to. It's a revolutionary approach to art that reflects Rand's revolutionary approach to human psychology. It is the novel that made Branden want to become a psychologist. And in Atlas Shrugged every character's personality and behavior, their tastes and values, are explained in terms of their ideas. (Check your premises.) 




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 161

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert: “Mr. Valliant apparently regards Ayn Rand's role as therapist or counselor--not just with Nathaniel Branden, but also with others among her followers and associates--as perfectly normal and natural.”

This is a very astute observation. Rand’s role as counselor to Branden is one of the more baffling aspects of this strange episode.

Amateur counseling of one’s intimates violates a major precept of psychology, not to mention common sense, especially since from Branden’s point of view, Rand was part of the problem. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Branden needed at least to talk about his rather messy private life. So why did he not approach a party who was independent of both Rand and Objectivism?

My view is that both he and Rand would have rejected independent professional help because psychologists from outside Objectivist circles would presumably be operating on faulty premises and would therefore be of little help to Branden.

At the same time, Branden may have felt awkward about approaching a psychologist within Objectivist circles, since not only would that have risked spilling the beans on his relationship with Rand, but also undermined his authority within the hierarchy.

So from those perspectives, Rand was the logical choice.

Branden may also have hoped that the counseling sessions would provide him with an opportunity to talk Rand around, to convince her by rational argument that a sexual relationship with him was no longer possible. After all, he and Rand had talked themselves and their spouses into the relationship. Perhaps he could talk her out of it.

No doubt Rand had a genuine – although in this case seriously misguided – desire to help Branden through his problems. But by taking part in his counseling, she also ensured she had some control over the direction of his thoughts, especially those that concerned the lovely Patrecia.

As for Rand’s explosive reaction to Branden’s evasions, I agree with Ellen that more than jealousy was involved. Rand had worshipped Branden as the Objectivist Hero, the first of a new breed of men who would transform the world into a sunlit garden. When he revealed his feet of clay, he effectively destroyed her vision of radiantly rational men and the women who hero-worshipped them.

Brendan




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 162

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

The observation that men's emotions, attitudes, motives and values derive from their ideas goes back to the ancients. It was integral to the thought of medieval Aristotelians, and was at the core of many 19th Century novels and plays (Hugo, Rostand, Ibsen etc.) Developing the plot from this integration was the idea of Henryk Sienkiewicz, whom Rand greatly admired and learned from. So even the application of what we now call "cognitive psychology" to the craft of the novelist was not Rand's innovation.

Today, the term "cognitive psychology" is used mainly for the perspective of studying psychology as a "cognitive science," integrating philosophical epistemology and the results of other "cognitive sciences" (linguistics, neurophysiology, cognitive anthropology, information sciences) with the study of human consciousness and mental life. Ayn Rand admired the scientific contributions of Jean Piaget, and of linguist Noam Chomsky (with the latter she had enormous political disagreements, which did not prevent her from commending Chomsky for his part in the "Cognitive Revolution" that swept away Behaviorism.) But she never claimed (and I think never would have claimed) to have provided the impetus, or the foundation, for the development of cognitive psychology as such.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 163

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's important to remember some conxtext about Nathaniel Branden when considering this issue. It's easy to jump to conclusions about Rand's urge to control Branden, etc., etc. That story is right out of the Brandens' playbook. But let's keep some facts in mind here.

Branden lied to Barbara about his affair; he even turned down Barbara's request for an affair after he had started a secret one of his own.

Think about that.

Could Branden be the one who was interested in preserving appearances? It was already part of his gameplan to engage in this sort of deception.

And after Barbara found out about his affair, she helped maintain the illusion that the Brandens were still working on their marriage for Rand's benefit.

Think about that.

I don't see anyone even pondering the possibility that it was the Brandens who were stringing Rand along to keep their positions of privilege with Rand by catering to an illusion that would be more acceptable to Rand -- that they were honestly struggling to maintain their marriage when in fact they had been lying to her about their own affairs with other people for years. Could they have been motivated to conceal their deceptions from Rand? Or is Rand the one exerting control over them?

Remember, as Rand continued to suggest that age might be a factor in Branden's feelings for her, he continued to deny it. She claimed that even a good man might have problems with the age difference, though she thought that an ideal objectivist hero would not have. Nathaniel Branden wanted the top spot in her hierarchy -- he needed to be number one, the Objectivist hero. Branden kept denying there was an age issue and that he would be sexually attracted to her at any age. He continued to kiss her in a sexual way and sketch out scenarios in which he would continue having sex with Rand.

Moreover, from Rand's notes in PARC, we now know that Rand was continuing to figure out a way to preserve their working relationship even after Branden finally admitted that the age difference had become a problem for him -- so, once again, the notion that Rand was using sex as leverage over him is simply not true. It was the discovery of his four year deception, especially in light of all of those phony psychological discussions, that instigated a total break with him.

Nathaniel did seek psychological counseling from his cousin, Alan Blumenthal, by the way. And yes, Objectivists were pioneering a whole new approach to psychology at the time. All in-depth discussions of psychology with Rand were invaluable to Branden as he was continuing to write The Psychology of Self-Esteem. So Branden had yet another reason to stick around and keep picking Rand's brain. But since everyone is assuming the credibility of the Brandens' stories, no one is imagining the Brandens' own motivations in this scenario -- instead, all the speculation is about how Rand the authoritarian was trying to manipulate poor Nathaniel Branden.

Another note: as soon as Branden requested psychological counseling from Rand for his sexual "problem" Rand immediately put aside their sexual relationship. Could this have been another reason Branden concocted his phony condition? I've heard no one even pondering that possibility, either.

Come on, folks. Read PARC and see Rand's side of the story. I guarantee it will cause you to check your (Brandenian) premises and see this whole issue in a new light.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 164

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad to hear that you aren't interpreting me either as simplifying or perfectifying (;-)) AR.

You wrote:

"We perfectly agree about Rand being complex (apparently, she was wonderfully so). We may not agree on degrees of certain aspects, but I don't mind. Do you?"

No, not at all.

Regards,

Ellen



Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 165

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

You ask for context when you talk about money, position, etc, that the Brandens enjoyed as being motives for the deception.

That's OK. Those considerations probably did exist. I believe both of them owned up to them also.

But how about the context that Rand might have been a controlling personality, and the fact that the Brandens were afraid of their "master's" wrath - the fear stemming from being brought up as disciples, and the fact that the Objectivist view of romantic love is not a complete theory (witness even the complaints that Frank was not a world-mover), but they had swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and a host of other considerations of that nature?

I did read PARC and I am not convinced that any of the context can be blanked-out. Not the context you state, nor the context that I did.

One fact does not annul another when you talk about context.

Michael




Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 166

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

No, Rand wouldn't have claimed that, since she was not a trained psychologist and did not claim to be. But Branden saw a revolutionary approach to psychology in her books which could be summed up as the psychology of self-esteem. And I don't believe that any novelist had explored so systematically the relationship of philosophy to psychology as Rand. It is explicit and systematic in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Whereas most critics disaparaged her for this, claiming her characters were no more than agents illustrating a spectrum of psychologies based on underlying ideas, just polemical automatons expressing their premises, Rand was quite specifically claiming that that is, indeed, the nature of human beings -- we are manifestations of our idealogical premises, whether those premises are known (conscious) or unknown (subconscious). No one expressed this more explicitly, completely and systematically than Rand. Wouldn't you agree with that, Adam?




Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 167

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The author who did more for individualism, self-esteem and independence than anyone else in history was controlling of only one thing: her philosophy. No one forced the Brandens to make a living off of that philosophy. No one forced them to lie. Ayn Rand certainly did not use sex as a prerequisite to their continued professional benefits from that philosophy. And no one forced the Brandens to lie to Rand for years, to use her mind to engage in fraudulent psychotherapy, etc. Considering how "controlling" Rand was supposed to be, the Brandens sure were out of control.

The only way, it seems, that Rand would be considered not "controlling" (as though she had no right to control her own ideas or her own life!) is if she said, "OK, Nathaniel, you have dragged me through years of phony crisis management over your sexual paralysis while carrying on an affair with a woman you claimed was an inferior, you have colluded with Barbara in putting together a united front to pull off this charade, you have led my feelings on for years while knowing it was a lie while sleeping with this other woman, and all the while you have been teaching my ideas, about integrity and honesty and independence, but I think you're a fine representative of my philosophy and you may continue to have my full endorsement to teach the ideas that were my life's work. Is that it, Michael?

If so, then everyone is "controlling." I invite friends over for a party, but if any of them behave in a way that violates my standards, there's the door. Now I'm controlling.

I purchase a car with the understanding that it runs. It doesn't and I demand my money back. Now I'm controlling.

I find out that my lover and business partner and the representative of my ideas about integrity, honesty, and self-reliance has been lying to me, playing me like a fiddle, and sleeping with someone else while claiming to be sexually paralyzed -- I part company and retract my endorsement. Now I'm controlling. And the only way I can be considered not "controlling" is if I sign everything over and relinquish all of my own standards. Yeah, right. But it's Rand, and not the Brandens, who are considered to be "controlling." All Rand was controlling was herself and her own interests. The Brandens were controlling Rand, for years, through deception. But they're the poor victims, right? Jeesh.




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 168

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey,

I have no problem with your examples. Just with your judgment that those examples blank-out other observations of many other people, including the Brandens, who lived with Rand.

They do not. They co-exist with them.

We keep repeating...

Michael




Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 33, No Sanction: 0
Post 169

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey: “I don't see anyone even pondering the possibility that it was the Brandens who were stringing Rand along to keep their positions of privilege with Rand…”

There’s no question that at least Branden was stringing Rand along in order to promote his own interests. But this focus on “he-said, she-said” ignores the context of Branden’s lies. He didn’t just wake up one morning and think: “Shit, I’m bored. I’m going to string Ayn along for a while with some bullshit about sexual paralysis. What the hey, I might even get a book out of it if I can pick her brains long enough.”

The context of Branden’s lies was the decade-long deception that the pair had practised. From the outside, it appeared that there were two couples at the apex of the Objectivist hierarchy, when in fact and unbeknown to onlookers, there was also a third coupling.

As pointed out in another thread, the appearance denied the reality. Not only were Rand and Branden operating under a false pretence, they also persuaded two other people to sacrifice their own interests to act as a cover story.

Rand and Branden deceived their followers. Branden deceived Rand. I suppose it might be possible to calculate who was the master deceiver, but I’ll leave that to others. The fact is that the lies and deception began long before Branden hit on his master-stroke of claiming “sexual paralysis”. (Which maybe wasn’t too far from the truth, at least as it applied to Branden’s lack of response to Rand.)

Brendan




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, you wrote,
We didn't have to take any of it seriously, did we?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

(I got that when you said it, but it only became funny now for some reason - sorry for the delayed laugh...)

No, we didn't have to take any of it seriously. Still, I'm going to stay out of small airplanes for awhile...

Michael




Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 171

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan -- the dishonesty in your post makes any that Rand practiced pale in comparison.

There is a difference, pointed out here by others, and now by me, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, between privacy and deception. So I suppose because you don't tell the world about when you masturbated today and what you fantasized about, you're as bad a deceiver as Nathaniel Branden was, eh? No one has any obligation to share the details of his or her love-life with the public, and keeping those details private does not constitute dishonesty or deception.

The use of the word "followers" makes me seriously wonder whether you know anything about Objectivism to begin with, but I would say that anyone who called himself a follower should be kept far, far away from the private details of anyone they "follow." You seem to infer that "followers" suddenly have a right to know such details. Spoken like a true stalker.

So this is how you strike a moral equivalence between cheating on a lover and having an open marriage with no secrets between the participants. If they don't tell the world about it, they're engaging in deception, even though no one who deserves to know the truth was not informed. Funny, but most people sensibly believe that respecting one's lover means you don't cast the pearls of that love to the swine for mass consumption. According to you, the guy who brags in the locker room about what he did with his girlfriend is a paragon of honesty.

And then you have the nerve to suggest that Branden's story about sexual paralysis was TRUE if you look at it from a shamelessly skewed point of view!

And you get sanction points from people who must believe in the Brandens more than they agree with or understand Objectivism. Fine, nobody has to understand or agree with Objectivism. But does anyone need to be so sycophantic to the Brandens that they would stretch themselves into such an outrageously copromised position for them?




Sanction: 40, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 40, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 40, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 40, No Sanction: 0
Post 172

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Oh, we're painting the roses red...."

While I have the energy (and a few minutes in which) to make this declaration (there's a lot going on in my personal life at the moment because of a medical emergency involving a close relative, and I doubt I'll have time even to look at list mail in the next couple days; but the thought of making this comment has been on my mind, and I'd like to get it off my mind):

While reading the posts on this thread, I've repetitively thought of a song from the Disney movie of "Alice in Wonderland": the "painting the roses red" song.
It includes a segment which as best I recall goes like this:

"Oh, we're painting the roses red.
The Queen, she likes them red.
If she saw white instead,
She'd raise a fuss,
And each of us
Would quickly lose his head.
That's why we're painting the roses red."

The relevance to the NB/AR relationship leading up to "The Split" (there have been other "splits" in the Objectivist world -- indeed, "splits" are characteristic of that world -- but "The Split" remains the one between AR and the Brandens) is my belief that Nathaniel was correct in his belief that Ayn Rand would send him packing if she ever learned of his affair with Patrecia. There's no way of confirming for sure the accuracy of NB's (and my) belief as to how she would have reacted. He didn't level with her straight off. Instead, he engaged in an attempt at deception for several years. So we'll never know for sure how she would have reacted. But my belief is (as he's said his belief was) that "The Queen, she likes them red. If she saw white instead...." In other words, that AR's image of Nathaniel would have been shattered and she would have concluded that he'd all along been unworthy and would have sent him on his way soon after he told her (had he told her, prior to Barbara's revealing the fact) of his affair with Patrecia.

And there's a relevance of this prognostication to understanding *why* NB lied and continued lying. Casey Fahy paints a picture of someone engaged in cold-blooded calculation for gain and fame. I think that this picture is woefully inaccurate to NB's actual psychological state, which I assess as having been one of tortured, guilt-ridden, and ad hoc fabrication (that is, one in which he came up with the most plausible excuses he could find under constant inner and outer pressure).

In one of his posts, Brendan, who seems to me very astute at psychological understanding, pointed to the possibility that Nathaniel's "lie" of being sexually paralyzed wasn't entirely a lie, that Nathaniel halfway believed this "lie" himself. I think that he did halfway believe it himself, just as he said he did in both versions of his memoir. I think that Nathaniel, halfway, hoped and thought, part of the time, that his affair with Patrecia was an aberration, that he'd recover, that he'd return to the "straight and narrow" of a Giant of Self-Esteem's (according to AR's theory of sex) desire for AR. And that partly he was trying to "buy time" while he (as he partly saw it) "straightened himself out."

And further: That Patrecia, who managed to endure this vacillating from the man she loved, was the true unsung heroine of the whole sad and sorry tale.

Ellen





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 173

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen,

You're so wrong you simply cannot have read PARC. Maybe some day you will, and you'll be embarrassed that you assumed so much about Rand and that you placed so much faith in Branden. Oh well. I've done what I can at SOLO to point people to Rand's side of the story -- some just won't bother to look and will still carry the Brandens' torch, I'm afraid. Too bad.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 174

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen,

From what I gather, you knew Ayn Rand yourself. Am I correct?

Michael




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 175

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree wholeheartedly with Ellen's post 127.

None of the passages cited in this article provide evidence that AR was "jealous" of Patrecia. They provide evidence that she thought Patrecia was vastly intellectually inferior to NB, a judgment based on AR's own conversations with Patrecia at the time. 

Given the context, it's not surprising at all that NB's romantic interest in that kind of woman would baffle and insult AR. NB was THE leading spokesperson for Objectivism at the time (other than herself, of course). His interest in a romantic relationship, the highest of all one's personal relationships, with a superficial person contradicted the philosophy he lectured on for a living.

On the other hand, AR didn't view Frank O'Connor as a shallow man. I've never heard anyone claim that O'Connor was a genius, but by all accounts he did hold strong, rational beliefs. Saying that "Patrecia was an actress, and Frank was an actor" is a poor case for character equivalency.

I don't know firsthand what Patrecia or Frank were like, nor am I claiming that I know AR was never jealous (though I do find it unlikely, given testimony of her delight in others' virtues, beauty, and wealth). I'm only saying that if Patrecia was in fact a "shop girl," then identifying that fact and expressing indignation about NB's interest in her isn't proof of jealousy. It was a rational response.




Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 176

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Casey: “No one has any obligation to share the details of his or her love-life with the public…”

So one’s choice of romantic partner is a mere detail? That’s an interesting point of view.

And there’s also a difference between privacy and reticence. For example, I think we can assume that, even though Rand and Branden informed their spouses of their intention to have an affair, they declined to share the intimate details of their love-making with their respective spouses.

So even within the privacy of their arrangement, there were no doubt some secrets between the participants. And the spouses were required to shoulder the responsibility of protecting secrets they were not privy to. That’s a heavy burden. And more than just a detail, don’t you think?

“And you get sanction points from people who must believe in the Brandens more than they agree with or understand Objectivism.”

So it’s a choice between belief in the Brandens and Objectivism? Well, I guess you’re being open enough about your agenda, Casey, but the cat left the bag long ago. There are too many interpretations of Objectivism around now for the imposition of one correct position.

Brendan




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 177

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There are too many interpretations of Objectivism around now for the imposition of one correct position."

Maybe so, but the subjectivist one cannot justifiably be among them.





Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 36, No Sanction: 0
Post 178

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 11:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Casey,

Something you leave out -- among the many other considerations you either leave out or distort -- pertains to my state of knowledge of the circumstances and of the participants. You see, I *knew* Ayn Rand. I was there in New York City from mid-September 1968 to the end of 1980 (a year and a few months before she died). I know just how "controlling," etc., she actually could be. My opinion, based on both my first-hand observations and many reports from persons other than the Brandens who knew her well, is that the portrait of her characteristics presented by the Brandens is substantially accurate. And, for that matter, I even thought, years before The Split, that she was romantically involved with Nathaniel. The Split came as no surprise to me. At any rate, my perspective on the whole situation is one you could never acquire, not having been there.

And as to my "plac[ing] so much faith in Branden," oh, my, how wrong can one get? I didn't even like Nathaniel prior to The Split. Today I consider myself a distant friend of his, but my relationship with him didn't start until 1997. You presume (and wrongly) a great deal, Casey, about where I'm coming from.

BTW, no, I have not read PARC. On that one detail, you're correct. I've read a number of excerpts from the Journal entries quoted in the book, however. And, guess what, those excerpts are just exactly the sort of thing I expected she would be saying. To me it's extraordinary that anyone who's read those excerpts could have the view you've enunciated as to the immense benefit that would have been conferred on a person receiving psychological counseling from Rand. The very idea of receiving such counseling from her sends a shiver of horror down my spine. You and I have quite radically different views of Ayn Rand.

Ellen S.



Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Jon Trager:

Jon,

I do have to take exception to one point in your post 175. I don't agree that Rand's response was a "rational" one, except in the following sense: I suppose it could be called "rational" according to Rand's own theories of the nature of sexual response. But, although I think that she hit on an important truth in regard to what she called "sense of life" and the area of sexual response, I think her theory of sex has a mistaken moralistic cast to it.

There is, so I've read, an old Arab proverb which goes: "Show me a man's horse, and I'll tell you what he is." (The Arab culture placed high importance on horses.) AR's theory of sex was along the same lines: "Show me who a person sleeps with, and I'll diagnose the state of that person's soul." Well...yes and no. There's a sort of truth in this idea. But one has to know just a tremendous amount of detail idiosyncratic to a person to understand that person's sexual responses. Rand, as I've indicated, I think indeed would have considered Branden's choice of Patrecia indicative of something wrong with him. But I think she'd have been incorrect in that assessment. Instead, I think that forming a relationship with Patrecia was the healthiest thing he was doing during that period of his life.

And, no, Patrecia wasn't what Rand thought of as a "shop girl." I think that this is an unfair assessment of Patrecia, that Patrecia had a wonderful deep joy in life which would have been immensely uplifting and liberating to Nathaniel.

Ellen S.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]