| Forum Home | Forum Topics |

Topic: McCarthy's Southern Works
Thread: ...very sobering to him.

Total messages for all days: 30

...very sobering to him.	Adam S.	10/26/2006
I'm certain this passage has been discussed. Probably at length. But I searched the Forum and can't find anything about it. If I missed it, my apologies for bringing it up again. It looks like y'all have already been through several rounds of "boy is a god" discussion. And there seem to be plenty of posts on the carrying-the-fire. The father and son seem pretty well convinced of their status as carriers of the fire. The father seems to see the son only through that sort of prism. I wondered if the father was simply seeing the boy through rose colored glasses. But then I got to the part where the thief steals their cart. The father and son catch up to him, of course. If you dont put down the knife and get away from the cart, the man said, I'm going to blow your brains out. The thief looked at the child and what he saw was very sobering to him. He laid the knife on top of the blankets and backed away and stood. (p 215) Now, what the heck was so sobering? The survivors of this disaster are a pretty hardy, harsh band of people. Killers. What could the thief have seen that would make him surrender? Maybe the boy was crying? So what? The boy is reallly skinny and pathetic looking? So what? Dime a dozen. The boy has a pleading look on his face? Who cares? In a world like this one, when you're faced with a man, pointing a loaded pistol at you - what could possibly compete with that? It left me thinking there was something about the boy that even the thief could see, if he bothered to look. It seems to me this reinforces the father's view off the boy. But what might that "something about the boy" be? I hope this is an easy one for the Forum-ites.

...very sobering to him.	Candy Minx	10/27/2006
I've seen people caught up in their actions going full throttle and then catch the eye contact of a child. I've seen it stop them. Give them pause. I would say that was a very understandable and realistic moment. What was very sobering? Childhood.

...very sobering to him.	Greg S.	10/27/2006
Is this the same Adam of years gone by? The one who taught me how not to handle a bullet wound? If so, welcome back. That really is a strange line and it stopped me, too. Maybe what he saw was a kid for whom any father would fight to the bitter end, i.e. he understood that he had absolutely no chance in an argument with the father. Forget appeals to logic or fairness.

...very sobering to him.	kincaid	10/27/2006
Hello, Kincaid here. I'm relatively new here. Don't know if I am supposed to introduce myself somewhere. "very sobering to him" missed me when I read it, but I see it's significance. It could be so many things. For one thing a living 10 year old boy was apparently about as rare as hens teeth. As far as I can tell the boy had never seen another living child until they encountered the little boy outside of the town. The presence of a child would have held import, but I think it was more than that. The father was not that different but the boy certainly was. He was the carrier of the fire, the "chalice", "good guys"; in short he was the messiah.

...very sobering to him.	Pequod	10/27/2006
“It left me thinking there was something about the boy that even the thief could see, if he bothered to look.” I agree. The sight of a skinny kid would not seem to elicit the sobering of the thief. Those still alive have witnessed and endured a host of events beyond the pale. The survivors—even the good guys—must be a pretty hardened lot, reduced to core animalistic instincts and behaviors. It is not the gun pointed at him that causes the thief to release his weapon, it is the sight of the boy. My feeling is that when his gaze fell upon the boy he at once recognized a source of ‘pure’ goodness; goodness of a kind he had, even before the disaster, ceased to believe in, let alone anticipate encountering in the flesh. What he saw in the uncorrupted boy meant he could no more raise his hand to strike a deadly blow than he could grow wings and fly south. Gazing at the boy made releasing the weapon a more essential act than securing the goods in the cart.

...very sobering to him.	Adam S.	10/27/2006
Yes, Greg, it's me. Back again. Glad to be back - and great to see lots of familiar names on the forum. I'm inclined to agree with Pequod. But I wonder how that "uncorrupted goodness" looks? Remember the road rat shot by the father earlier in the book? He'd been looking at the boy, too. Grabbed the boy and put a knife to his chest. I wonder why his reaction ws different? Are we to believe that the boy "glows", or is outwardly luminous? The father as he's dying comments on this, but I don't know if it can be taken as an actual occurrence or a hallucination. Would a survivalist loner be willing to drop his weapon based on a look at a normal kid? Or does the kid have to be diffferent somehow?

...very sobering to him.	mikew	10/28/2006
If I remember correctly the fact that children are rare was made clear when they met up with the old man, (Ely). The road-rat would have seen children as his group kept a group of young boys as sex slaves. Maybe upon seeing the boy the thief realized that there would be no negotiating with the father, as the father had something to fight for other than himself. Think of the effort involved in keeping yourself alive in that world, never mind a child as well. Or maybe in looking at the child he was reminded that some sort of future still existed and this was something he hadn't thought about in a long time.

...very sobering to him.	kincaid	10/29/2006
Was the guy who was sobered an exile from one of the blood tribes or something else. I thought that he was a canibal when I first read it but Papa notices his spatula like fingerless hands and surmises that he was an exile from a "commune". I don't know if the fingers had served as an hors d'oeuvre of a blood cult member or if their removal was the punishment for breaking the laws of a commune, similar to many cultures removal of a hand for theft. I got the idea that the communes were different than the blood cults. Did the blood cults keep boys as sex slaves? I certainly remeber the mothers prediction that both she and the boy would be raped and then eaten. And I remember their seeing the group of men with the red scarfs with women in tow and as a movable feast. And their was the guy who Papa killed who looked at the boy hungrily; I think he looked to fulfill two needs. I don't remember their encountering any other children other than the boy in the woods, the dead baby, and of course the children at the end. TR haunts me maybe because there are so many unanswered questions.

...very sobering to him.	mikew	10/30/2006
Kincaid - The army of men they encounter on page 77 kept boy sex slaves. Page 78: "...and lastly a supplementary consort of catamites illclothed against the cold and fitted with dogcollars and yoked to each other."

...very sobering to him.	jeffr	10/30/2006
... and, this has ALREADY made it into wikipedia under 'catamites'. Try googling 'crozzled'. I couldn't find it in the SOD. CMcC is outraging them everywhere...

...very sobering to him.	kincaid	10/30/2006
Mike, Thanks for pointing the catamite bit out. That should teach me to read McCarthy without the OED or American Heritage close at hand. Although I really could have lived the rest of my life without knowing the definition. TR is now all the more disturbing. So do ya'll think that the "blood cults" and "communes" were the same things?

...very sobering to him.	kincaid	10/30/2006
jeffr, What is the 'SOD'? Thanks

...very sobering to him.	NewEngland	10/30/2006
Just a quick observation about the thief who steals the shopping cart. In the novel, everyone that the father and son encounter appears to be threatening. Viewed through the eyes of a father whose only concern is to protect his boy, all strangers pose an unacceptable risk. Therefore, he does not take the chance of trusting anyone. Is it possible that some of these individuals are in actuality fairly decent human beings? All of the strangers look frightening. They are emaciated, unkempt, and ill-clothed. Seen in this way, even the father and boy are also scary. Some of these individuals encountered on the road are undoubtedly dangerous, such as the person from the truck who the father to shoots or the people who have shackled human beings in a cellar. Others may only look frightening while still adhering to some sort moral standards. We really don't know about these people, but we quickly fall into the father's way of thinking that everyone is a threat. Here we could put the three men brandishing pipes who ask what is in the cart near the last quarter of the book. They look deadly, but so would the father whose first response to strangers it to draw his gun. Did they really want to rob the father and the boy? We just do not know. Was the thief who steals the cart really that bad a guy or was he just a man with few options for survival? Maybe upon seeing the boy, he makes the decision that a life that has reduced him to stealing from a starving child is just not worth living. At the end, even the man in the parka gives a terribly frightening appearance with his matted hair and the deep scar that cuts across his face. In spite of his appearance, however, he turns out to be the boy's salvation. Would the father have shot first and asked questions later?

...very sobering to him.	jeffr	10/30/2006
Kincaid Shorter Oxford Dictionary

...very sobering to him.	Candy Minx	10/30/2006
Um, I gotta admit, after talk of catamites and sexslaves...SOD conjured up other references than dictionaries.

...very sobering to him.	Clement	10/30/2006
I think Candy is right. There is something sobering about being judged by a child. In fact, throughout the book he judges his father with his "Are we still the good guys?" question.

...very sobering to him.	mikew	10/31/2006
NewEngland- I'm not sure that the father had a choice in his attitude towards strangers. In a world where people eat babies for dinner and will kill you for a can of beans how could you possibly know who to trust?

...very sobering to him.	stephanie	10/31/2006
jeffr: According to the OED, "crozzle" as a noun means "cinder" or "a burnt piece of coal or wood". I love his range of vocabulary.

...very sobering to him.	NewEngland	10/31/2006
mikew, I agree with you totally. The father does exactly what he has to do, and acts in an admirable manner. I pose these questions, however, "Is he making a lot of mistakes along the way?" and "Are there more good people around than the father sees?" If the answer to these questions is yes, the ending does not seem out of place at all. There are good people out there, the father just has to reach out to them. Think about the other little boy that the boy sees about half way through in the book. This other little boy is as well-clothed and nourished as anyone that they encounter. Some people have even suggested that this little boy is the son of the man in the parka. I will not go that far, but I wonder if the father had reached out to this other boy, could a lot of hard-times have been avoided?

...very sobering to him.	jwm	10/31/2006
> "Is he making a lot of mistakes along the way?" and "Are there more good people around than the father sees?" Good questions of course. What does the text tell you? I am curious as to whether anyone has an example of when someone in the novel (the father obviously because he is the one who is primarily in control of the narrative action) coulda/woulda/shoulda done something different and one can admirably/miraculously/certainly predict a different and better outcome.

...very sobering to him.	Greg S.	11/1/2006
I think New England is on the right track. What is interesting is that there is no textual evidence to support the idea that the father during the entire journey ever made an active attempt to hook up with good guys in the sense that he systematically staked out an area and observed who was living there. Even when there was an indication that children might be living in one town. Assuming that he really believed in the existence of good guys, and I accept at face value that he did, then why did they not stay in one area long enough to see if any were around? (Don't give me the survival handbook argument. There has to be a section in that book on what to do when you think your are near allies. It would not prevent changing camp each night.) No, the father appears to subscribe to the mystical belief that the good guys will find them. That's what he says to himself in the house near the beach. The good guys are looking for something and when they find it they will reveal themselves. All he and his son can do is wait and keep moving. This sounds like it comes straight out of some religious tract on grace. Maybe it does. Or it sounds like a bedtime story you tell your children, not really believing it yourself. I'm not criticizing the father's survival instincts even though I do not think he is an ex-military type or survivalist. They don't even have adequate outdoor equipment or decent maps. I can see how the decisions not to help (i) the burnt man, (ii) Ely, (iii) the man who stole his clothes, and (iii) the woman who had been abandoned after one of the men in her group shot the father -- gee, that's getting to be a pretty long list given how few characters there are in the novel -- might be justified by the lack of food and lack of trust. But at some point in his dream the man would be approaching a group of "good guys" who presumably also had little food to offer and little incentive to offer shelter and asking them to support him and his son. The father is too sick to take care of himself and the son. There is a disconnect here between what the father is willing to offer others and what he expects of others. Doesn't that strike you as strange? The question posed, one that has echoes throughout McCarthy's work, is "where are the others?" That's the question that needs to be answered by the father. You can pose that question in different tones. My written tone here may come across as too sharp. But a gently-posed question in the direction of the father about the logic of his mission and his apparent double-standard is justified. What does his relative passivity in this regard tell us about his character? About McCarthy's view of the world? I instinctively rebel against a simplistic view of the father as some kind of immaculate hero. McCarthy has not spared a single one of his characters scathing criticism so far. Not John Grady Cole, not Billy, not Suttree, not even the wonderful Papaw of The Stonemason. Papaw is the other major "good guy" character to whom, ultimately, the question "where are the others" was posed. A final thought on the "sobering" theme of this thread. Another way of looking at the man's sobered reaction is to compare the hermit at the beginning of Blood Meridian. The hermit's heart is shriveled through all the evil that he has seen (and done), and he is an outcast, albeit a voluntary one. He is painfully aware of what he has lost. The view of the son in The Road might spark a similar reaction in the outcast.

...very sobering to him.	mikew	11/1/2006
As I read the novel it occurred to me that maybe the kid didn't see another kid at all, but instead a reflection of himself in a mirror that he mistook for another child. Even if he didn't, I saw the concern that he showed for the other child as a projection of the concern he held for himself. I think that he knew his father was dying as he stated that he had to worry about everything. Maybe he saw that other child as himself once his father was dead. I didn't see any conncetion between the glimpsed child and the man in the parka

...very sobering to him.	Pequod	11/1/2006
NewEngland posted: "Is he making a lot of mistakes along the way?" and "Are there more good people around than the father sees?" Undoubtedly there would be a severe learning curve in making the transition from modern US society, with the accompanying comforts and privilege, to a post-apocalyptic survivalist lifestyle. The fact that the Man and Son have survived for a decade speaks to the father’s intelligence, instincts, dedication, faith and love. Driven on by his love for his son, he has likely made numerous mistakes along the way, yet none so serious as to have cost them their lives. The risky tactic of keeping to roads is dictated by the need to have a cart to carry all that is needed to ensure survival. Should the duo leave the road, some risks will be reduced, yet other risks will be increased. Only so much nourishment and shelter can be carried in backpacks, so supplies will have to be scavenged more often. Staying on the road with the cart makes them more vulnerable to detection by others. I suppose the father assessed the risks and decided that possessing the cart increased chances for survival. The “good guys” who discover the boy are surprised that he and his father survived so long on the open road. Yet doesn’t this group have the luxury of avoiding the roads due to their numbers? While Mr. McCarthy does not specify the size of the group that takes in the boy, it seems clear that their numbers gave them more options, even as they had more mouths to feed. I do believe there are more good people than the father sees. Still, I sense that leaving the road in search of other good people may well have decreased the odds for survival. They weren’t the only ones headed toward what they hoped would be warmer climes, so maybe it wasn’t so fantastical that the boy would be discovered by good people after the father’s death. His love had taken them far before he succumbed to illness.

...very sobering to him.	elizabeth murphy	11/1/2006
Greg and New England - I agree that the father is no “immaculate hero”. And as I’ve said before, all classical heroes are flawed, that is part of what drives the drama. The man in The Road certainly does not believe that he has all the answers or makes all the right choices. But he clearly believes that heading for a warmer climate is essential and they may not be able to out-run the colder weather. He thinks it is October when the book begins. They can’t stake out different areas looking for the “good guys” because they don’t have time. We don’t know much about what happened in the 5 to 10 years between the disaster and the start of the novel because McCarthy intentionally hasn’t given us that info. I think it is very possible that during that period the man could have found that the extremely limited resources made people desperate and, therefore, untrustworthy. The contact that they have with the other characters that New England mentions could have been avoided but the father allows it just as he allows the boy to play in the cold water. This is a story about a person who has lost almost everything that defined his life but goes on with the journey. Do you think that if the boy had died at the beach the father would have killed himself? I don’t think he would have done that. Elizabeth

...very sobering to him.	drewdeman@comcast.net	11/5/2006
"...very sobering to him..." was arresting for me too. I had meant to track down "catamite". Thanks for the explanation. In light of the blood cults' keeping of chained catamites and the one baby having been cooked at the abandoned fire in the woods, yes--a child free to walk the road, survive, maintain some semblance of childhood innocence, and to judge (with humanity) another person, would be a real schock. Simply the look of a child's humanity could be sobering. But I like the more spiritual angle too. By the end of the book (yes, I know that, literally, the father's dying and his vision is failing, but on page 233, "There was light all about him." and "...when he moved, the light moved with him." Is this light real and visible? Or are we meant to understand it as a hallucination that's a metaphor for the man's continuing belief in the boy? I suppose it can be both. Drew

...very sobering to him.	dethnerd	11/10/2006
Drew, everybody: on my second read, I took in the line which says the boy shone like a "tabernacle." In Exodus, God tells Moses to make a tabernacle so that He can dwell there among the people. This, and the "fire" they are carrying, and the "godspoke" men mentioned, all tie into the Gnostic reading of McCarthy's work which other people on this forum have gone into much more deeply and informedly than I could here. I will say that it is a reading which has helped me unify and understand otherwise disparate ideas/elements of all his work.

...very sobering to him.	hdy	1/4/2007
"If you dont put down the knife and get away from the cart, the man said, I'm going to blow your brains out. The thief looked at the child and what he saw was very sobering to him. He laid the knife on top of the blankets and backed away and stood." (p 215) I'm all for the messianic aspects of the boy (see p. 218 where the boy says "I am the one." as in God naming himself in Exodus 3). Some posters explained that this is what the thief saw and what sobered him so quickly. However, on my first read it seemed to me that the boy's existence sobered the thief because the mere fact he was alive meant his father would, could and had done anything necessary to keep him alive (including killing thieves). So the threat from the gun became assuredly not a bluff.

...very sobering to him.	gampy	6/11/2007
That passage with the cart thief, and the line you mention have remained with me as well. Perhaps I don't read too much, or enough, into things, but I thought the thief saw the honest face of the child and knew the father was not bluffing. The boy believed his father would shoot him. The thief saw this in the boy's face. I don't read it any other way, or see a subtext there.

...very sobering to him.	hodologico	6/12/2007
I tend to agree with gampy, or more generally with a non-supernatural view of the boy. Though maybe I'm not the most perceptive reader of The Road - I didn't even notice the boy emanating light and the light moving with him, as I read the book in one night and I was pretty tired and screwed up at the end. Things (he) may have changed over time... but throughout the arc of CM's authorship, he has been one to lay transcendental referentiality over, or map supernatural meanings onto, events and characters whom they might somewhat fit... typically in a modality that's at least checked; maybe sometimes almost experimental. At least that's how it comes off to me. While one could cry irrelevence, considering that The Road is a minimalist work and Blood Meridian a maximalist one, take a look at this passage from the latter, recently quoted on another thread: He [Glanton] would live to look upon the western sea and he was equal to whatever might follow for he was complete at every hour. Whether his history should run concomitant with men and nations, whether it should cease. He'd longed forsworn all weighing of consequence and allowing as he did that men's destinies are given yet he usurped to contain within him all that he would ever be in the world and all that the world would be to him and be his charter written in the urstone itself he claimed agency and said so and he'd drive the remorseless sun onto its final endarkment as if he had ordered it all ages since, before there were paths anywhere, before their were men or suns to go upon them. BM p. 243. Technically speaking, if I recall correctly, supernatural attributions in McCarthy are often framed in simile. You can see that here as Glanton's cosmic aspects are described: "as if he'd ordered it all ages since." To me the cosmic mappings throughout McCarthy are maybe checked, or sometimes almost threatened with puncture, by their relationship with McCarthy's numerous less grave "cosmic sallies" that are likewise formed in simile or metaphor, but clearly spiced with mild absurdity or bombast, or similarly lacerated (not quite "undercut") by concrete disgustingness (pus, ooze, poop, whatever). This does not cast humor over the graver cosmic comparisons and explorations like the one above involving Glanton, but it does make them less objective and less indisputable, for me. I don't say less literal, because this particular passage on Glanton can (if you want to) be interpreted literally and yet still describe a natural world (natural in the philosopher's sense - "atoms and void" as Democritus puts it). Glanton's cosmic relationship at least in this paragraph could be a philosophic one rather than a literally supernatural one (or not). If I recall, with the Judge we are pushed farther by the text toward a supernatural/transcendental interpretation of his nature, as has been discussed here before. But even there - and even when the construct is not simile, but instead that more ambiguous construct, metaphor, is used - I think the cosmic attributions and supernatural projections made in a "less grave" vein still reflect on the graver ones that form the kernal of the book, rendering them a bit more tentative. So, in my view, the text is not pushing us very hard at all toward a supernatural reading of the boy. That actually didn't even occur to me at all. After all, quite aside from my above arguments about McCarthy's texts - what is the boy going to do, anyway... put back all the dust? A messiah needs something he can redeem without changing it over completely - god needs a partner, something beyond his whim, in his clay, or else the clay itself is just part of god (to see god everywhere is to see him nowhere, as McCarthy said, perhaps borrowing from some antipantheist theologican I am not familiar with). The boy can't fix this world. It can't be fixed without doing what amounts to making a whole new one. I don't see how H sapiens could survive indefinitely after the event that set up The Road. There are no birds, apparantly no plants, and cows are rumored to be extinct. It seems that even if/after the dust settles, mankind is doomed to follow. Altogether it's a tough stage for a messiah - more a job for a god moving over the face of the waters. Actually, on second thought, I'm less sure about the above paragraph. Maybe when the dust goes down, there will be some seeds of higher plants left to germinate. If there are higher plants, man could probably survive. Rick I know you're a dinosaur man and probably know something about the Permian extinction and stuff... or at least the K-T... is there a hard core nuclear/meteoric winter science thread somewhere on this forum?

...very sobering to him.	Cerulean	3/12/2009
“If you don’t put down the knife and get away from the cart, the man said, I'm going to blow your brains out. The thief looked at the child and what he saw was very sobering to him. He laid the knife on top of the blankets and backed away and stood” (McCarthy 215) When I first read these sentences, it reminded me of a moment from To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Atticus is guarding the prison with an African American man inside when a crowd comes with plans to lynch the black man. Atticus’s young daughter, Scout, comes running because she fears for her father’s safety. Although she’s not exactly sure what is happening, Scout recognizes faces in the crowd of men. She starts talking to one man, Mr. Cunningham, about his family and his son. This immediately disperses the mob mentality and Mr. Cunningham, feeling ashamed, tells all the men to go home. Scout’s effect on Mr. Cunningham is very similar to the boy’s effect on the thief. I agree with Candy Minx and Drew. Childhood is what stopped the thief. The eyes of a child are the eyes of judgment. The boy was so trusting and selfless that he was worried about the thief’s wellbeing more than his own. Although the father is angry at the thief for taking everything and wants to leave the thief “the way [he] left [them]” (McCarthy 257), the boy did not want any vengeance. Looking into the boy’s eyes made the thief more humane again. “Remember the road rat shot by the father earlier in the book? He'd been looking at the boy, too. Grabbed the boy and put a knife to his chest. I wonder why his reaction was different?” In response to Adam S.’s question, I think there was a little bit of humanity left in thief that was completely lacking in the road rat. Both were starving, but the road rat was completely dehumanized. The road rat was “like an animal inside a skull looking out the eyeholes” (McCarthy 63). As a cannibal, he had lost dignity and respect for his fellow man. The thief had a different reaction to the boy. The fact that the son was “very sobering to him” (McCarthy 215), speaks on the thief’s character as well as the boy’s nature. The thief still kept the idea of childhood innocence in his heart and was reminded of it when he looked at the boy. The road rat looked at the boy, disturbingly enough, and saw dinner. “Do you think that if the boy had died at the beach the father would have killed himself? I don’t think he would have done that.” Elizabeth, I see where you are coming from, but I think that the man would have committed suicide if his son died. The boy is the reason the man is living. They are “each the other’s world entire” (McCarthy 6). The son even asks the father, “What would you do if I died?” (McCarthy 11). The man responds that he would want to die too so that he could be with his son. Additionally, the father says “that the boy was all that stood between him and death” (McCarthy 29). Yes, they are both carrying the fire and yes, he does constantly tell the son to not hope for death. Despite the father’s will to live, I think he creates this mantra to give his son hope. The man feels that if he endows his son with a little hope and purpose, it will go a long way in helping his son survive. Of course, by saying it over and over again, the father thinks that he will truly begin to believe it too. Although some argue that the father is selfish for keeping the son alive in a terrible cruel world, I disagree. I don’t see their bond as being a mutualistic symbiotic relationship. Humans naturally have a strong will to survive and I think the best thing the father could have done for his son was to keep the boy alive. The father believed in the sanctity of life more than the mother did. In regards to the father’s survival tactic of being suspicious of other road travelers, I just wanted to make one comment. The father has to be the one who has to worry about how they will survive. He has to regard everyone as a threat and any situation as a potential trap, just in case. In order to protect them, he has to commit immoral or questionably moral actions. This includes killing the road rat, killing the man who shoots arrows at them, and forcing the thief to take off all his clothes. Because the father takes on the burden of preemptive strike for their defense, he allows the son to stay innocent and pure. By tainting his own soul, he allows the boy to stay virtuous. In a way, he sacrifices his moral integrity for his son. I think that is why the boy is able to embody pure goodness and stay that way throughout the novel. It is the boy’s job to worry about their souls. When the father says “you’re not the one who has to worry about everything,” the son answers “yes I am...I am the one” (McCarthy 259). They are worrying about two different things. The father worries about day to day life and the boy is the one making sure that they stay the good guys. “I am curious as to whether anyone has an example of when someone in the novel (the father obviously because he is the one who is primarily in control of the narrative action) coulda/woulda/shoulda done something different and one can admirably/miraculously/certainly predict a different and better outcome.” I was wondering if anyone found an answer to jwm’s question, because I am curious also. -Cerulean

If you'd like to reply to this thread, we encourage you to login so you can post messages. If you are not a member of the community, you can register now.

| Forum Home | Forum Topics |