• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Homosexuals and Bisexuals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
48
Burnaby
Visit site
✟36,546.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
Smaller does not mean "nearly nonexistent."

If the presumed number of gay people is a very low 1%, and the percentage of respondents was .01%, then it is not a representative sample. That is bad statistics.

Possibly there was a selection bias of some kind, and the few gays that they managed to find and interview were not representative of the gay subpopulation as a whole.

It's also notable that the median values for homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same. So half of the homosexuals had 7 or fewer partners. The significantly higher mean, though, suggests that there are a small proportion of outliers who had a very high number of partners, skewing the bell curve. This would have a big influence on the homosexual stats due to the small sample size. Similar outliers in the heterosexual data would be easier masked by the large sample size.

Also, it would be nice to know the calculated error ranges and confidence levels for the three different groups.

(I'm a bit rusty on statistics, so if anything here is way off, let me know.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maren
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
The acronym NAMBLA stands for the National Man Boy Love Association. Seems to be gay centered.
No, seems to be paedophile centred, which is different.

The constant attempt by anti-homosexuals to attempt to implicate all homosexuals in paedophilia is precisely as wrong and illogical as it would be to attempt to implicate all heterosexuals in paedophilia. Yes, there are some men who want to have sex with little boys. But there are, in reality, a great many more men who want to have sex with little girls. And just like the majority of heterosexual men do NOT want to have sex with little girls, so too the great majority of homosexual men do not want to have sex with little boys.

So, if we could please stop the constant red herrings regarding NAMBLA and other child molesters? That would be just great, KTHXBI!

(p.s. I realise that there are female child molesters as well, and that they too, can be found targeting both male and female children, however, these never seem to come up. The focus of anti-gay sentiment almost invariably seems to revolve around male-male anal sex, to the point you might think the condemners (or at least, their primary motivating speakers) have some sort of obsession they might not like their followers to know about)
 
Upvote 0

Ben-AG

Member
Apr 23, 2009
114
4
College Station, TX
✟15,264.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I've seen the damage social agendas have done to our families, and have lived through it myself, so I am not for gay marriage because it appears to be another damaging social agenda being pushed on us without merit.

It's not about religion, but then too it is, if one believes that God has revealed Himself through the world around us as the Bible claims.

Not that I am trying to run you down for not having the same view. I am just expressing mine.


I respect that. Me, personally, have never experienced anything of that sort.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Well, he may have (even knowingly) posted false information. But I have not seen him actually attack anyone. And it is apparent through what I have seen of his posts that he is not trying to do so, at least to me it is.

There is a difference between simply telling someone that they are not being safe and being mean, hateful, etc. (which would constitute an attack).
Posting false information unknowingly is a not a problem it is easily corrected. It is when false information is repeated, defended and represented as truth even after it is shown to be false that the real problem occurs
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Well the past few pages of this thread have been largely about how scientific data is being twisted and led about to demonize gays. Paul Cameron's famous lie that gays have a life expectancy of 42 years for example. So you tell me – is it loving to twist data and lie about gays?[/FONT]
I’ve asked that multiple times and have yet to receive an answer
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
roflcopter, here are a couple of sites who shine some light on mental health problems and homosexuality specifically on young males.

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century
- Studies from the University of Calgary
- Presents a lot of percentages regarding suicide and homosexuality and even presents arguments proposed by critics and attempts to refute them

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality
-"Homosexuality has also been shown to be correlated with suicide attempts
among youth"

I'm sure there are more sites, but I do not have all the resources to access them.
What you have is a causation/correlation problem. Fortunately it is one more recently studies have resolved.

It is not being gay that is the driving force of such numbers rather it is the prejudice and anti-gay violence (particularly violence against them perpetrated by parents) that young gays are exposed to that is the culprit.

Y Hidaka, D Operario “Attempted suicide, psychological health and exposure to harassment among Japanese homosexual, bisexual or other men.” Showed positive correlation accounting for 83% of mental health issues of gay and bisexual men stemming from discrimination, verbal abuse and physical violence practiced against them. Homosexual men not exposed to such abuse had significantly lower instances of mental illness, emotional problems and suicidal ideation than the population at large.


Hershberger SL, Pilkington NW, D'Augelli AR. “Predictors of suicide attempts among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth.” Found that suicide attempts among gay, lesbians and bisexual youth is directly related to being physically abused/the victim of in home violence. Gay/lesbian/bisexual youth who were not being abused at home were less likely to have suicidal ideation than their age cohort.

Rotheram-Borus MJ, Hunter J, Rosario M. “Suicidal behavior and gay-related stress among gay and bisexual male adolescents.” Found similar results to the Hershberger study and included verbal and emotional abuse by parents and being forced out of the home by parents as predisposing stressors to suicide.

Proctor CD, Groze VK. “Risk factors for suicide among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth.” Also identify in home abuse as the primary cause of emotional problems among gay and lesbian youth. They note that one in five lesbians teenagers is sexually abused by their father and such sexual abuse began after they came out to their parents they also found 85% of lesbian teenagers are physically abused by their parents beginning after coming out

Bagley C, Tremblay P. “Suicidal behaviors in homosexual and bisexual males.” Found that links to mental illness among gay men were related not to sexual orientation but to how that individuals parents responded to his coming out.

Hunter J. “Violence against lesbian and gay male youths” found that gay and lesbians are over three hundred times as likely to experience physical, verbal and or sexual abuse at the hands of their parents after coming out compared to control teens

DuRant RH, Krowchuck DP, Sinal SH. “Victimization, use of violence, and drug use at school among male adolescents who engage in same-sex behavior.” Again fond that it was not sexual orientation but the enduring of regular verbal, emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse that is the cause. Gay teens who are not verbally or physical abused have no different incidence of mental health issues than heterosexual peers

Faulkner AH, Cranston K. “Correlates of Same-sex sexual behavior in a random sample of Massachusetts high school students.” Again found it is being abused at home and not being homosexual that is the issue

Garofalo R, Wolf RC, Kessel S, Palfrey J, DuRant RH. “The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents.” Linked substance about to being abused in the home

Shaffer D, Fisher P, Hicks RH, Parides M, Gould M. “Sexual orientation in adolescents who commit suicide.” Found positive correlation between emotional abuse by family and authority figures as predictors of suicidal behavior, not sexual orientation
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
The name of the study is "Sexual Diversity in Urban Norwegians". It's pubished in The Journal of Sex Research. Is this a bad Journal? Where are you getting the idea that it is bad science? If you have a certain sample size, then that's what you have.

If you are going to compare the habits of straights to gays and bis, you're simply going to have to live with the fact that the sample size of gays and bis is going to be smaller. That's not bad statistics, that's reality.
Trying to make claims about a minority based on a survey where the minority (who makes up 5-10% of the population) response was 0.01% of the total responses is bad statistics no matter how you slice it.
 
Upvote 0
God does not give intimate feelings toward the same sex. I believe those are something in the natural man, that are broght about by some by either influence(subconcious or other), or is learned.
It is a sin because men and women are to be joined as one, to multiply and feel the earth. Both a man and a women bring different things to a relationship that are important. A man brings strength, courage, protection, provision, and authority in love. A women brings nurture, understanding, support, steadiness, and communication in love as well.
This is GOD's Plan, it works perfectly this way, as does all HIS work. Praise Him.

Eloquent and lovely.
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Claiming "bad statistics" for the agenda driven "bigoted majority" is so lame though as the same bias exist for "bad statistics" at the other side... No difference so debating using these statistics is merely like swimming in the ocean. It is simple logic we learn about human behaviour from our past. Historically we have no such a thing as a "homosexual" we ONLY have accounts of homosexual behaviour period. Wondering why? it is simple they constituted a very tiny percentage of the population that minor that no data or record was ever recorded since it was not considered the norm.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
This is a problem for any sampling done.

But, is 1/100 of the total population (of a group) bad statistics? Also, the number of "out and proud, open" gays is not that high, much lower even than the 1% mark, in most places, which would possibly make the statistics that much more skewed than average sampling permits.
If memory serves the less than 1% of the population is gay is a claim that was discredited long long ago. (I can’t find the references to it right now) It stems form a Chicago magazine phone survey that limited the definition of homosexual to ridiculous levels. To qualify as gay one had to have been sexually active exclusively with the same gender for more than ten years. Anything else was classified as heterosexual. I recall reading an interview with a prominent gay writer who noted that on that survey he would have been listed as heterosexual because ten years ago he was a virgin.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
No, seems to be paedophile centred, which is different.

The constant attempt by anti-homosexuals to attempt to implicate all homosexuals in paedophilia is precisely as wrong and illogical as it would be to attempt to implicate all heterosexuals in paedophilia. Yes, there are some men who want to have sex with little boys. But there are, in reality, a great many more men who want to have sex with little girls. And just like the majority of heterosexual men do NOT want to have sex with little girls, so too the great majority of homosexual men do not want to have sex with little boys.

So, if we could please stop the constant red herrings regarding NAMBLA and other child molesters? That would be just great, KTHXBI!

(p.s. I realise that there are female child molesters as well, and that they too, can be found targeting both male and female children, however, these never seem to come up. The focus of anti-gay sentiment almost invariably seems to revolve around male-male anal sex, to the point you might think the condemners (or at least, their primary motivating speakers) have some sort of obsession they might not like their followers to know about)
Pedophiles want to have sex with children. The gender of the child is rarely a preference factor for the perpetrator and is unrelated to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation. Usually a child is sexually abused because he/she is available for abuse. Most pedophiles are heterosexual and in an ongoing romantic/sexual relationship with the child’s mother, meaning most child molesters are the fathers of the children being molested (biological father, step father or ongoing romantic partner of the mother)
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Claiming "bad statistics" for the agenda driven "bigoted majority" is so lame though as the same bias exist for "bad statistics" at the other side... No difference so debating using these statistics is merely like swimming in the ocean. It is simple logic we learn about human behaviour from our past. Historically we have no such a thing as a "homosexual" we ONLY have accounts of homosexual behaviour period. Wondering why? it is simple they constituted a very tiny percentage of the population that minor that no data or record was ever recorded since it was not considered the norm.
Clarification please…are you saying that it is “loving toile and to twist data to fit an agenda” if that agenda is an anti-gay agenda?
 
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No of course not.. .I would not agree with any "twist" in any given way... I hate any agendas ... Truth is always the best policy. We are not to judge the world but to care for our brother and love them. Love has no agend BTW ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

b&wpac4

Trying to stay away
Sep 21, 2008
7,690
478
✟32,795.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Engaged
No of course not.. .I would not agree with any "twist" in any given way... I hate any agendas ... Truth is always the best policy. We are not to judge the world but to care for our brother and love them. Love has no agenda BBW ;)

Not allowing people who believe differently than you to live their life in peace with the same legal rights you have is not love.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
No of course not.. .I would not agree with any "twist" in any given way... I hate any agendas ... Truth is always the best policy. We are not to judge the world but to care for our brother and love them. Love has no agenda BBW ;)
So you are saying that false claims about gays and lesbians are wrong?
…claims like:
Homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years
Homosexuality is a pathology
Homosexuals have greater instances of depression, suicide, anxiety, mental illness because they are homosexuals
Homosexuals are more likely to be substance abusers and alcoholics
The majority of homosexuals have a STD
Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered

Correct?
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟72,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

This is an excellent article written by Handsfield that addresses some of the issues.

He says, "Gay men appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual men or women for gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal venereal warts, and perhaps for genital and anorectal herpes simplex virus infection, we well as for several STDs outside the traditional sphere of venereology, including hepatitis A, hepatitis B, amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis, enteritis due to Campylobacter fetus, genital and anorectal meningococcal infection, and cytomegalovirus infection."

He then goes on to say, "Most studies to date, however, have been conducted in STD clinics or at sites where persons congregate for anonymous sexual activity, such as steam baths, and the applicability of their findings to the homosexual male population at large is unknown."
Here he clearly points out the flaw in those studies as not an accurate representation of the whole homosexual male population, as you have extrapulated yourself. But, he continues and addresses this problem:

"Darrow and his colleagues.. have attempted to address this problem by reporting the frequencies of several STDs relative to various risk factors in a large population of gay men in the general population. Critics will point out, and the authors acknowledge, that the results cannot be considered applicable to all homosexual men; the population sample included only 4,212 respondents (1.5 %) to 275,000 questionnaires published in a gay-oriented magazine or distributed through organizations relating to homosexual men. This study commands attention, however, because of the size of the population surveyed and because it was not conducted in an STD clinic. The fact that only 36% of the respondents who had sought profressional care for STDs had done so at public clinics supports the concept that this population sample is different, and presumably broader, than other populations of gay men studied to date."

After Handfield addressed the validity of his findings, he goes on to express them:

"The results contain no surprises, except that perhaps that full 78% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the STDs surveyed; and 2,228 of 3,696 who answered the question fully had experienced an STD aside from pediculosis. Although individuals who had been infected might have been more likely than other gay men to participate in the survey, this probably was not a major determinant, since only four of the 692 questions directly referred to STDs or to medical issues."

He came up with approximately the same result as the one that was under challenge:

"The infections surveyed occured with roughly the same relative frequencies that have been observed among gay clientele of STD clinics or steam baths."

I have two things to say about using AIDS or other STDs as an argument against gays and gay marriage. First, ultimately, it does not matter what a persons sexual orientation is; regardless of the sexual orientation if couples are in an ongoing monogamous relationship they are not (as a general rule) going to pass on an STD or AIDS). So, at least to me, the idea that STDs may be a problem in the homosexual community is actually one of the best reasons to promote same-sex marriage. I understand you disagree with homosexual acts however, not everyone (not even all Christians) believe as you do.

Second, if we are really going to go after gays for their rate of STDs shouldn't we use the same standard to go after Blacks. Blacks in Africa are far and away the largest group that are infected with AIDS and other STDs. Even in the United States, Blacks (as I recall) have the majority of those infected with AIDS/HIV and Washington, D.C., largely because of their large Black population, is the most infected city in the United States.

And, sorry, I guess one last point -- if gays are the most immoral because of the percentage infected by AIDS, does that make lesbians the most moral (lowest AIDS/HIV infections and chance of getting infected)?


:sleep: <-- This is probably what most of you are doing after reading this post, and I am sorry :D. I know it's long and cumbersome :sick: and I quoted alot but merely to make a point. If you caught anything from this article, Handfield is merely trying to show the increased health risks involved with being a homosexual, specifically men. I think most people come to that conclusion already without having to go though such a tiresome article.

Here are some more interesting and educating articles: Related Articles for PubMed (Select 6895005) - PubMed Results

Most of these studies fit into the above comments.


Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
<--This website goes on to show different mental health problems and issues with suicide such as homosexuals 6x more likely to commit suicide as opposed to heterosexuals. I won't go in depth in this one but instead I'll let you formulate your own idea position on this one.

Forgive me if I find this paper suspect. Let me give you one example: At one point the author makes the claim, "Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals". Now, the reference he gives for these claims is a paper he wrote and one he did no real research for. Rather, he quotes that it is "calculated from Laumann". This gets even more interesting because the citation to Laumann is also not to a study but to an examination of, "the National Health and Social Life Survey, a 1992 nationwide survey". So, basically rather than looking at the original study to try and support his claims (which I'm assuming he tried), he instead goes to "one of two books reporting on the findings".

So, yes, it is very hard for me to take seriously the writings of a man who not only appears to make assumptions (like his assumption about the Netherlands "where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries") that are not supported. I'll admit the Netherlands as a whole is somewhat more accepting of "alternative lifestyles" than the US but I don't think I'd go as far that it is "more widely accepted than in most other countries". The fact is, having lived in the Benelux and as someone once fluent in Dutch, there is still plenty of non-acceptance of alternative lifestyles. It is much like the US; large cities have more acceptence and smaller cities still have little real acceptance. And then to create a point about homosexuals being more promiscuous, even in relationships, he points to his own paper based on another paper based on a study. As such, he is not reliable (as most papers on NARTH are not reliable).

As for NARTH, my big question is this: NARTH was founded to, "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality." Now, the last sentence of the article you posted from NARTH states, "In conclusion, then, if we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be "Further research--uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue." So, why in their 17 years of existence as a scientific group dedicated to "research homosexuality" has NARTH never published, or even created, a scientific study designed to answer the questions they continually ask similar to this one?
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
I have two things to say about using AIDS or other STDs as an argument against gays and gay marriage. First, ultimately, it does not matter what a persons sexual orientation is; regardless of the sexual orientation if couples are in an ongoing monogamous relationship they are not (as a general rule) going to pass on an STD or AIDS). So, at least to me, the idea that STDs may be a problem in the homosexual community is actually one of the best reasons to promote same-sex marriage. I understand you disagree with homosexual acts however, not everyone (not even all Christians) believe as you do.

Second, if we are really going to go after gays for their rate of STDs shouldn't we use the same standard to go after Blacks. Blacks in Africa are far and away the largest group that are infected with AIDS and other STDs. Even in the United States, Blacks (as I recall) have the majority of those infected with AIDS/HIV and Washington, D.C., largely because of their large Black population, is the most infected city in the United States.

And, sorry, I guess one last point -- if gays are the most immoral because of the percentage infected by AIDS, does that make lesbians the most moral (lowest AIDS/HIV infections and chance of getting infected)?




Most of these studies fit into the above comments.




Forgive me if I find this paper suspect. Let me give you one example: At one point the author makes the claim, "Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals". Now, the reference he gives for these claims is a paper he wrote and one he did no real research for. Rather, he quotes that it is "calculated from Laumann". This gets even more interesting because the citation to Laumann is also not to a study but to an examination of, "the National Health and Social Life Survey, a 1992 nationwide survey". So, basically rather than looking at the original study to try and support his claims (which I'm assuming he tried), he instead goes to "one of two books reporting on the findings".

So, yes, it is very hard for me to take seriously the writings of a man who not only appears to make assumptions (like his assumption about the Netherlands "where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries") that are not supported. I'll admit the Netherlands as a whole is somewhat more accepting of "alternative lifestyles" than the US but I don't think I'd go as far that it is "more widely accepted than in most other countries". The fact is, having lived in the Benelux and as someone once fluent in Dutch, there is still plenty of non-acceptance of alternative lifestyles. It is much like the US; large cities have more acceptence and smaller cities still have little real acceptance. And then to create a point about homosexuals being more promiscuous, even in relationships, he points to his own paper based on another paper based on a study. As such, he is not reliable (as most papers on NARTH are not reliable).
Thank you for researching this (you beat me to it) and raising these very salient points. It is fairly common for biased research to cite things other than the actual source…usually they cite third or fourth references. It seems that the reason for the convoluted sources is to prevent people from actually checking facts. Timothy Dailey is famous for this tactic, read through his references sometime and note just how many non-primary sources he uses. One of his favorites is to talk about a study but then not reverence or even name the study instead referencing a small print news article that is not archived.

As for NARTH, my big question is this: NARTH was founded to, "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality." Now, the last sentence of the article you posted from NARTH states, "In conclusion, then, if we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be "Further research--uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue." So, why in their 17 years of existence as a scientific group dedicated to "research homosexuality" has NARTH never published, or even created, a scientific study designed to answer the questions they continually ask similar to this one?
I think there is a reason why NARTH does not actually do this and it is related to the reason it is recognized as an anti-gay hate group
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Trying to make claims about a minority based on a survey where the minority (who makes up 5-10% of the population) response was 0.01% of the total responses is bad statistics no matter how you slice it.

It showed 1.6% gay and close to 9% gay and some form of bi inclusive.



Sexual Diversity in Urban Norwegians.
By: Traeen, Bente; Stigum, Hein; Sorensen, Dagfinn. Journal of Sex Research, Nov2002, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p249, 10p, 1 graph

Bigayandstraightpromiscuity.jpg


Strange to find so many studies indicating promiscuity in gays when it has been proven that they are so stable and responsible according to the APA.

Where is this mountain of evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
I think there is a reason why NARTH does not actually do this and it is related to the reason it is recognized as an anti-gay hate group

While I have had occassion to be irritated with NARTH's lack of effectiveness, the accusation of it being a hate group comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and not any official hate registry. It's definition of hate includes the following:

"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

So if you hand out tracts against gay marriage, you might qualify.

No one yet has been willing to give me the direct link to this center's supposed list of 12 or whatnot gay "hate groups", but the link I have found is here.

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.