My whole opinion has changed.

Like Tree74Likes

The thing is, groups are not monolithic, so some prefer Blacks and others prefer African-American/Canadian and some like some other term. The issue is calling people what they would like to be called (assuming that they want to be called respectful terms, of course.) As long as you start with a term that is polite to use, and apologize and use the preferred term if asked, you should be fine and I don't see how that restricts anyone's freedom of speech.

But we live in a world where it is worse to say, or even hint or imply, that someone or something is racist, than to actually BE racist.

I think some people think that using racist language, or insisting on the terms THEY want to use, takes the sting out of it or gives them some kind of power - it doesn't.
Eilonwy and curlypearl like this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I specifically said I wasn't talking about slurs.

I think "visually impaired" sounds horrible. Impaired = weak. I don't understand how suddenly blind became a slur. A person who says visually impaired sounds overly precautious and ill at ease. I don't think of PC as a problem of respect, but as a problem of instilling insecurity in people's minds.

How can terms that have only recently been coined by some and which haven't been incorporated by the rest of the group be "culturally accurate"? Sounds like the opposite of culturally accuracy to me if you are ignoring the history and common usage of words.

The term "politically correct" exists for a reason. Somebody wanted to criticize a type of behaviour, and that behaviour had nothing to do with cultural awareness. Trying to "rebrand" concepts as if that would make a problem go away is...well, it's exactly the problem. Calling PC cultural awareness is as PC as PC can be.

But I too am growing tired of this whole debate. People can't help but polarize every issue. You are supposed to either embrace every "rebranding" that somebody somewhere suggests or you are prejudiced and desperately clinging to priviledge.

I'm not worried about losing priviledge or adjusting my language. This isn't about me and how I feel is not relevant in the larger scheme of things. But I worry that we are not trying to acknowledge and celebrate our differences, but tiptoe around them. Euphemism is a dangerous thing too. When you use eupehmism, it is because it's implied that the thing you are avoiding is bad. It's the stuff fascist regimes are made of.

What happens when somebody says Brazilians are somehow inferior. Do I then internalize that and start calling myself a person born in Brazil? That, to me, is the real insult.

This is in no way the same as calling a woman a whore or calling somebody by the n word, because those words' very definitions are negative and discriminatory. Those, to me, are slurs.
thelio likes this.
I specifically said I wasn't talking about slurs.

I think "visually impaired" sounds horrible. Impaired = weak. I don't understand how suddenly blind became a slur. A person who says visually impaired sounds overly precautious and ill at ease. I don't think of PC as a problem of respect, but as a problem of instilling insecurity in people's minds.

How can terms that have only recently been coined by some and which haven't been incorporated by the rest of the group be "culturally accurate"? Sounds like the opposite of culturally accuracy to me if you are ignoring the history and common usage of words.

The term "politically correct" exists for a reason. Somebody wanted to criticize a type of behaviour, and that behaviour had nothing to do with cultural awareness. Trying to "rebrand" concepts as if that would make a problem go away is...well, it's exactly the problem. Calling PC cultural awareness is as PC as PC can be.

But I too am growing tired of this whole debate. People can't help but polarize every issue. You are supposed to either embrace every "rebranding" that somebody somewhere suggests or you are prejudiced and desperately clinging to priviledge.

I'm not worried about losing priviledge or adjusting my language. This isn't about me and how I feel is not relevant in the larger scheme of things. But I worry that we are not trying to acknowledge and celebrate our differences, but tiptoe around them. Euphemism is a dangerous thing too. When you use eupehmism, it is because it's implied that the thing you are avoiding is bad. It's the stuff fascist regimes are made of.

What happens when somebody says Brazilians are somehow inferior. Do I then internalize that and start calling myself a person born in Brazil? That, to me, is the real insult.

This is in no way the same as calling a woman a whore or calling somebody by the n word, because those words' very definitions are negative and discriminatory. Those, to me, are slurs.
Originally Posted by Dedachan
I think "visually impaired" is preferred by some because it is more accurate than "blind." "Blind" implies to me a blankness or deficiency - like the person is unable to "see" at all. In fact, the person can "see" with their other senses but not (or not well) with their sight - it is their vision that is impaired, but they are not "blind" - they can still make observations and judgments. I don't think impaired = weak. It = "not 100%." It's like saying a person is "disabled" versus saying they use a wheelchair or live with disabilities or have reduced mobility. The latter three are accurate - the former is not, because the person themself, as a human being, is not "disabled."

I don't think it has anything to do with using euphemisms or rebranding or polarizing. In the case of persons living with disabilities, the barriers they face have a lot to do with other peoples' beliefs that they are incapable or damaged or what have you, rather than acknowledging that yes, they may have some challenges or losses in a particular area, but they are very capable in others. The language we use has power and being "culturally aware" has to do with acknowledging this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Hmm deep so my question is, is it wrong to call women of color black?? And Caucasian white?? What are the correct term to call this two ethics group?? Because honestly I use Caucasian and black all the time, are this words slur??

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using CurlTalk App
The thing is, groups are not monolithic, so some prefer Blacks and others prefer African-American/Canadian and some like some other term. The issue is calling people what they would like to be called (assuming that they want to be called respectful terms, of course.) As long as you start with a term that is polite to use, and apologize and use the preferred term if asked, you should be fine and I don't see how that restricts anyone's freedom of speech.

But we live in a world where it is worse to say, or even hint or imply, that someone or something is racist, than to actually BE racist.

I think some people think that using racist language, or insisting on the terms THEY want to use, takes the sting out of it or gives them some kind of power - it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You make reasonable points, but I don't see how it's practical for everyone to have their own private vocabulary. A language is always a code shared by a group. People have to agree on what words mean for it to be an effective means of communication. How do you talk if you are on a live tv broadcast, for instance? I think the real solution is for people to differenciate between actual hurtful words and words that are simply used in negative contexts.
Hmm deep so my question is, is it wrong to call women of color black?? And Caucasian white?? What are the correct term to call this two ethics group?? Because honestly I use Caucasian and black all the time, are this words slur??

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by darkbeautytt
Women of colour may or may not be considered or consider themselves Black - women of colour may be from ethnicities that do not use the term Black.

I personally hate the term Caucasian and don't see how it is better than white. I don't think any of the terms you listed are seen as slurs. I think some people will prefer one over the other and I would just go with their preference. I also think you should use like with like, so Black/white, Caucasian / African or African-American etc., person of colour / person not of colour or white, African-American / European-American, etc. But that is just my personal taste.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Is he racist or just stupid??
Possibly neither. He could just be a jerk.
thelio likes this.
No MAS.

I am the new Black.

"Hope the Mail are saving space tomorrow for Samantha Brick's reaction piece on the reactions to her piece about the reactions to her piece." ~ Tweet reposted by Rou.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Kimshi4242

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/kimshi4242
The thing is, groups are not monolithic, so some prefer Blacks and others prefer African-American/Canadian and some like some other term. The issue is calling people what they would like to be called (assuming that they want to be called respectful terms, of course.) As long as you start with a term that is polite to use, and apologize and use the preferred term if asked, you should be fine and I don't see how that restricts anyone's freedom of speech.

But we live in a world where it is worse to say, or even hint or imply, that someone or something is racist, than to actually BE racist.

I think some people think that using racist language, or insisting on the terms THEY want to use, takes the sting out of it or gives them some kind of power - it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You make reasonable points, but I don't see how it's practical for everyone to have their own private vocabulary. A language is always a code shared by a group. People have to agree on what words mean for it to be an effective means of communication. How do you talk if you are on a live tv broadcast, for instance? I think the real solution is for people to differenciate between actual hurtful words and words that are simply used in negative contexts.
Originally Posted by Dedachan
Most broadcasters I know of have a code where they will agree to, say, use the term African-American and that is what they have agreed upon. I think most "official" places have similar codes and most individuals informally have them. We have one at my work informally that you learn pretty quickly and it has not been an issue in our dealings with people in a large variety of circumstances.

Up here, persons who were once called "native Indians" may be referred to as "indigenous peoples", "Aboriginal" or as "First Nations." "Aboriginal" is a broader term as it includes those who do not belong to a Nation, but using either term will generally not get you in trouble. Sometimes you may say Aboriginal as it is more inclusive and will be corrected and asked to say "First Nations" - so you say that and move on. I don't think anyone in that situation will be jumped on and accused of being hurtful or offensive. If people are respectful of one another, those differences get worked out and are not an issue. The beef in this thread is with people who intentionally and bull-headedly want to use language they know someone takes offense to, not with people who make honest mistakes or have legitimate disagreements.

eta: there are also serious political concerns behind some of this... like the efforts of Afrikaaners to be called "indigenous peoples" for example.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali












Last edited by Amneris; 03-30-2012 at 03:26 PM.
I specifically said I wasn't talking about slurs.

I think "visually impaired" sounds horrible. Impaired = weak. I don't understand how suddenly blind became a slur. A person who says visually impaired sounds overly precautious and ill at ease. I don't think of PC as a problem of respect, but as a problem of instilling insecurity in people's minds.

How can terms that have only recently been coined by some and which haven't been incorporated by the rest of the group be "culturally accurate"? Sounds like the opposite of culturally accuracy to me if you are ignoring the history and common usage of words.

The term "politically correct" exists for a reason. Somebody wanted to criticize a type of behaviour, and that behaviour had nothing to do with cultural awareness. Trying to "rebrand" concepts as if that would make a problem go away is...well, it's exactly the problem. Calling PC cultural awareness is as PC as PC can be.

But I too am growing tired of this whole debate. People can't help but polarize every issue. You are supposed to either embrace every "rebranding" that somebody somewhere suggests or you are prejudiced and desperately clinging to priviledge.

I'm not worried about losing priviledge or adjusting my language. This isn't about me and how I feel is not relevant in the larger scheme of things. But I worry that we are not trying to acknowledge and celebrate our differences, but tiptoe around them. Euphemism is a dangerous thing too. When you use eupehmism, it is because it's implied that the thing you are avoiding is bad. It's the stuff fascist regimes are made of.

What happens when somebody says Brazilians are somehow inferior. Do I then internalize that and start calling myself a person born in Brazil? That, to me, is the real insult.

This is in no way the same as calling a woman a whore or calling somebody by the n word, because those words' very definitions are negative and discriminatory. Those, to me, are slurs.
Originally Posted by Dedachan
I think "visually impaired" is preferred by some because it is more accurate than "blind." "Blind" implies to me a blankness or deficiency - like the person is unable to "see" at all. In fact, the person can "see" with their other senses but not (or not well) with their sight - it is their vision that is impaired, but they are not "blind" - they can still make observations and judgments. I don't think impaired = weak. It = "not 100%." It's like saying a person is "disabled" versus saying they use a wheelchair or live with disabilities or have reduced mobility. The latter three are accurate - the former is not, because the person themself, as a human being, is not "disabled."

I don't think it has anything to do with using euphemisms or rebranding or polarizing. In the case of persons living with disabilities, the barriers they face have a lot to do with other peoples' beliefs that they are incapable or damaged or what have you, rather than acknowledging that yes, they may have some challenges or losses in a particular area, but they are very capable in others. The language we use has power and being "culturally aware" has to do with acknowledging this.
Originally Posted by Amneris
So I work with blind and deaf people and here's a tidbit I always found interesting and confusing. Visually impaired don't really have a problem with the term visually impaired. Deaf people and hard of hearing people do NOT like the term "hearing impaired."

Note for those of you so-called "anti-PC" people-- I can hear you saying, "That's what I'm talking about!! How am I supposed to keep it all straight???" My answer to you is that most people do not get offended if you use a term that is offensive and you truly didn't know. It's when we TELL you it's offensive and you continue to use it that makes it offensive. Just apologize, accept that you didn't know and move on.


Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



The thing is, groups are not monolithic, so some prefer Blacks and others prefer African-American/Canadian and some like some other term. The issue is calling people what they would like to be called (assuming that they want to be called respectful terms, of course.) As long as you start with a term that is polite to use, and apologize and use the preferred term if asked, you should be fine and I don't see how that restricts anyone's freedom of speech.

But we live in a world where it is worse to say, or even hint or imply, that someone or something is racist, than to actually BE racist.

I think some people think that using racist language, or insisting on the terms THEY want to use, takes the sting out of it or gives them some kind of power - it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You make reasonable points, but I don't see how it's practical for everyone to have their own private vocabulary. A language is always a code shared by a group. People have to agree on what words mean for it to be an effective means of communication. How do you talk if you are on a live tv broadcast, for instance? I think the real solution is for people to differenciate between actual hurtful words and words that are simply used in negative contexts.
Originally Posted by Dedachan
Well you can also have multiple contexts as well, and using accurate language can only enhance ones understanding of the context that was intended.

For example in this article:

"Mark Povinelli, the actor with dwarfism who played Chelsea (Laura Prepon)’s coworker Todd on the otherwise-awful Are You There, Chelsea? joked in a recent episode that Dinklage hogs all the roles for devastatingly handsome men of short stature. "
And I also wanted an excuse to post something about Peter Dinklage (). I must have a "thing" for Peters because that's also my husband's name.
"The challenge is to be yourself in a world that is trying to make you like everybody else."
"...rationality is not necessary to sell things.."
My staples: Mane n Tail (cowash), Garnier Fructis Sleek n Shine (leave in condish), Grapeseed oil or shea butter (sealing), Organic Root Stimulator Elasticitea (leave-in condish & light hold)
I specifically said I wasn't talking about slurs.

I think "visually impaired" sounds horrible. Impaired = weak. I don't understand how suddenly blind became a slur. A person who says visually impaired sounds overly precautious and ill at ease. I don't think of PC as a problem of respect, but as a problem of instilling insecurity in people's minds.

How can terms that have only recently been coined by some and which haven't been incorporated by the rest of the group be "culturally accurate"? Sounds like the opposite of culturally accuracy to me if you are ignoring the history and common usage of words.

The term "politically correct" exists for a reason. Somebody wanted to criticize a type of behaviour, and that behaviour had nothing to do with cultural awareness. Trying to "rebrand" concepts as if that would make a problem go away is...well, it's exactly the problem. Calling PC cultural awareness is as PC as PC can be.

But I too am growing tired of this whole debate. People can't help but polarize every issue. You are supposed to either embrace every "rebranding" that somebody somewhere suggests or you are prejudiced and desperately clinging to priviledge.

I'm not worried about losing priviledge or adjusting my language. This isn't about me and how I feel is not relevant in the larger scheme of things. But I worry that we are not trying to acknowledge and celebrate our differences, but tiptoe around them. Euphemism is a dangerous thing too. When you use eupehmism, it is because it's implied that the thing you are avoiding is bad. It's the stuff fascist regimes are made of.

What happens when somebody says Brazilians are somehow inferior. Do I then internalize that and start calling myself a person born in Brazil? That, to me, is the real insult.

This is in no way the same as calling a woman a whore or calling somebody by the n word, because those words' very definitions are negative and discriminatory. Those, to me, are slurs.
Originally Posted by Dedachan
I think "visually impaired" is preferred by some because it is more accurate than "blind." "Blind" implies to me a blankness or deficiency - like the person is unable to "see" at all. In fact, the person can "see" with their other senses but not (or not well) with their sight - it is their vision that is impaired, but they are not "blind" - they can still make observations and judgments. I don't think impaired = weak. It = "not 100%." It's like saying a person is "disabled" versus saying they use a wheelchair or live with disabilities or have reduced mobility. The latter three are accurate - the former is not, because the person themself, as a human being, is not "disabled."

I don't think it has anything to do with using euphemisms or rebranding or polarizing. In the case of persons living with disabilities, the barriers they face have a lot to do with other peoples' beliefs that they are incapable or damaged or what have you, rather than acknowledging that yes, they may have some challenges or losses in a particular area, but they are very capable in others. The language we use has power and being "culturally aware" has to do with acknowledging this.
Originally Posted by Amneris
So I work with blind and deaf people and here's a tidbit I always found interesting and confusing. Visually impaired don't really have a problem with the term visually impaired. Deaf people and hard of hearing people do NOT like the term "hearing impaired."

Note for those of you so-called "anti-PC" people-- I can hear you saying, "That's what I'm talking about!! How am I supposed to keep it all straight???" My answer to you is that most people do not get offended if you use a term that is offensive and you truly didn't know. It's when we TELL you it's offensive and you continue to use it that makes it offensive. Just apologize, accept that you didn't know and move on.
Originally Posted by Springcurl
Yep, that is my same observation (re: "blind" and "deaf" people.) One big difference is that there is much more of a "deaf" culture and movement than there is a "blind" one.

And exactly re: your second paragraph. I think some people are so paranoid about being called a bigot that they get unnecessarily defensive when they should just be glad that someone is taking the time to nicely educate them.
Springcurl likes this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I also don't think it is that confusing. There are lots of things in life we may not know and need to learn, so why does this one area bug so much more than others? I get that people are resistant to giving up terms they are used to using and grew up thinking were OK... but there are lots of things we give up and move on from as we grow, so why should these be any different?
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











What is all this with people talking about "euphemism leading to fascism"??? Acknowledging what someone wants to be called isn't Orwellian language.

If you wouldn't make that same choice yourself, fine, whatever. That doesn't affect what other people want to be called.
Amneris likes this.
I also don't think it is that confusing. There are lots of things in life we may not know and need to learn, so why does this one area bug so much more than others? I get that people are resistant to giving up terms they are used to using and grew up thinking were OK... but there are lots of things we give up and move on from as we grow, so why should these be any different?
Originally Posted by Amneris
Agreed.


Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



As long as one is polite and willing to listen. There are people on both extremes (PC and anti-PC) who get self-righteous and accuse each other of this and that and there are those who really do use anti-PC rhetoric as a rebuttal when they are called out for saying racist, mysoginistic, anti-semitic and other prejudiced BS. I knew someone like that. I'm happy to say we are no longer friends.
Hmm deep so my question is, is it wrong to call women of color black?? And Caucasian white?? What are the correct term to call this two ethics group?? Because honestly I use Caucasian and black all the time, are this words slur??

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by darkbeautytt
Women of colour may or may not be considered or consider themselves Black - women of colour may be from ethnicities that do not use the term Black.

I personally hate the term Caucasian and don't see how it is better than white. I don't think any of the terms you listed are seen as slurs. I think some people will prefer one over the other and I would just go with their preference. I also think you should use like with like, so Black/white, Caucasian / African or African-American etc., person of colour / person not of colour or white, African-American / European-American, etc. But that is just my personal taste.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Thanks that really help cuz I wouldn't want to offend any one

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using CurlTalk App
I'm surprised that the word "blind" is considered a slur of any kind. To me, it is different than being "visually impaired." If I were speaking to a person who couldn't see at all, and for some reason I used the term "blind" and s/he was upset or offended and asked me to use the term "visually impaired" I would do so because I don't like to hurt people's feelings.

However, to me visually impaired is not the same as blind. I can't see the big E on the eye chart - extremely nearsighted. That's visually impaired. But I'm not "blind." I do think we are on the verge of splitting hairs here.

All of this has nothing to do with obvious slurs about which there is no question whatsoever. Don't be a jerk and use them. We all know what they are. Do unto others, etc.
2/c and some 3A. Modified CG.
Protein sensitive
Highly porous. Color over grey.
Best 1st day method: Super Soaker
Conditioners: Curl Junkie Beauticurls Strengthening Conditioner,
Deep condish: Curl Junkie Curl Rehab
Stylers: Mix Curls in a Bottle into everything for shine. Terrible pj
Sometimes try roller sets - classic glamor but I prefer my curls.
Every day is a gift
I'm surprised that the word "blind" is considered a slur of any kind.
Originally Posted by curlypearl
I could be wrong, but I don't think that "blind" is a slur. I think this is a matter of defining yourself instead of being labeled by others. I think that's what's going on with a lot of the terms being discussed here.
Amneris likes this.
I'm surprised that the word "blind" is considered a slur of any kind. To me, it is different than being "visually impaired." If I were speaking to a person who couldn't see at all, and for some reason I used the term "blind" and s/he was upset or offended and asked me to use the term "visually impaired" I would do so because I don't like to hurt people's feelings.

However, to me visually impaired is not the same as blind. I can't see the big E on the eye chart - extremely nearsighted. That's visually impaired. But I'm not "blind." I do think we are on the verge of splitting hairs here.

All of this has nothing to do with obvious slurs about which there is no question whatsoever. Don't be a jerk and use them. We all know what they are. Do unto others, etc.
Originally Posted by curlypearl
Blind is not generally considered a slur, but some do not feel it is an accurate description of who they are.

You are correct that "visually impairment" is a wider term, and that is the point. There are some who can see a little with their eyes, and some who can see nothing with their eyes, but both require some kind of assistance as a result of their level of vision. It puts the focus on the type of accommodation the person needs rather than what the person can't do or on labelling them a certain way.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I'm surprised that the word "blind" is considered a slur of any kind. To me, it is different than being "visually impaired." If I were speaking to a person who couldn't see at all, and for some reason I used the term "blind" and s/he was upset or offended and asked me to use the term "visually impaired" I would do so because I don't like to hurt people's feelings.

However, to me visually impaired is not the same as blind. I can't see the big E on the eye chart - extremely nearsighted. That's visually impaired. But I'm not "blind." I do think we are on the verge of splitting hairs here.

All of this has nothing to do with obvious slurs about which there is no question whatsoever. Don't be a jerk and use them. We all know what they are. Do unto others, etc.
Originally Posted by curlypearl
Blind is not generally considered a slur, but some do not feel it is an accurate description of who they are.

You are correct that "visually impairment" is a wider term, and that is the point. There are some who can see a little with their eyes, and some who can see nothing with their eyes, but both require some kind of assistance as a result of their level of vision. It puts the focus on the type of accommodation the person needs rather than what the person can't do or on labelling them a certain way.
Originally Posted by Amneris
You have convinced me about the term visually impaired. I still see people "censor" others for using the word blind. I'm reminded of how many people were accusing Josť Saramago's novel Blindness of being offensive (there's the movie version with Juliane Moore too). I'm not defending Saramago's novel because I happen to like it (I do and highly recommend it) but because it's obvious he wasn't judging blind people. His story was about how society fell into chaos when suddenly an epidemic spread and everyone became blind simultaneously (in that scenario, there is no support system because you cannot rely on anyone and anything - traffick, stores, electricity, food supply etc). It was obvious that it was more of a judgement on mankind (personkind? ) in an extreme situation.

I also recently saw how some NGO in Italy is trying to ban Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy in schools because it is islamophobe, homophobe, antissemitic...and it probably is. But if you are old enough to read The Divine Comedy, then you are old enough to understand it was written in medieval times, when people weren't aware that it was important to respect other people's cultures.

This is the kind of thing I roll my eyes at. If it was just about not using offensive terms (obviously I would never dispute why words like "cripple" or "retard" are bad) but there is an attitude that goes way beyond that and it comes across as silly.

I don't think we will descend into an Orwellian dystopia because of PC language, but some of the attitudes that go along with PC culture are rather arbitrary and while many of you speak of individual freedom to define oneself as one wishes, whoever decided to lash out against Saramago and Alighieri clearly isn't content to just leave it at that. That to me is language "policing" and, in extent, thought policing (the idea is that if you change language, people will internalize those differences and think a different way). And many are more than ready to apply it to art and literature. I'd like to be given some credit that I can think for myself and that I don't need to be shielded from Western literature for fear that I will become a biggot.
thelio likes this.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com