New topic
PrintableTheCrucialExperience said: CoJones said: Instead of just giving your opinions, why can't you state a fact in regards to Mr. Armstrong. Like the fact that he's the most tested individual in cycling. Also that he's physiologicially more adept for cycling than most, the 33% larger heart provides this advantage. Has he ever tested positive for any banned substance? No! Oh I see. So there's no way in hell he can cheat a drug test? Because that NEVER happens right? In fact ALL cyclists are clean that have never tested positive right? No, but instead of conjecture I state what are facts. My point is this, in a time where a number of pro athletes are juiced, Mr. Armstrong has never ran away from testing and never failed a test unlike others such as Barry Bonds. So why is suspicion raised with Mr. Armstrong when he's adhereing to the rules of the sport and not hiding behind some union. BTW I assume you have a medical background like your boy Joey? "be glad that you are free, many a man is not" | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
CoJones said: TheCrucialExperience said: Oh I see. So there's no way in hell he can cheat a drug test? Because that NEVER happens right? In fact ALL cyclists are clean that have never tested positive right? No, but instead of conjecture I state what are facts. My point is this, in a time where a number of pro athletes are juiced, Mr. Armstrong has never ran away from testing and never failed a test unlike others such as Barry Bonds. So why is suspicion raised with Mr. Armstrong when he's adhereing to the rules of the sport and not hiding behind some union. BTW I assume you have a medical background like your boy Joey? Well I guess we see research isn't one of your strengths, because Bonds has NEVER tested positive for any banned substance. And yes I have a medical background. Do you? "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: JoeyMFinCoco said: No, really, it's not debatable. You have a background in medicine? I would be very interested in any scientific article that proves that anabolic steroids cause cancer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: CoJones said: No, but instead of conjecture I state what are facts. My point is this, in a time where a number of pro athletes are juiced, Mr. Armstrong has never ran away from testing and never failed a test unlike others such as Barry Bonds. So why is suspicion raised with Mr. Armstrong when he's adhereing to the rules of the sport and not hiding behind some union. BTW I assume you have a medical background like your boy Joey? Well I guess we see research isn't one of your strengths, because Bonds has NEVER tested positive for any banned substance. And yes I have a medical background. Do you? Correct, Bonds has never failed because he fails to test. He hides behind his union. Why doesn't he just test and put criticisms to rest. No medical background , but I do know Lance has never failed and Bonds dances around the subject. "be glad that you are free, many a man is not" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: You have a background in medicine? I would be very interested in any scientific article that proves that anabolic steroids cause cancer. http://www.nfpt.com/Libra...angrs.html http://www.drugabuse.gov/...roids.html http://www.healthatoz.com...n_risk.jsp Now if you can show me any scientific articles that defeat these claims, go for it. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CoJones said: TheCrucialExperience said: Well I guess we see research isn't one of your strengths, because Bonds has NEVER tested positive for any banned substance. And yes I have a medical background. Do you? Correct, Bonds has never failed because he fails to test. He hides behind his union. Why doesn't he just test and put criticisms to rest. No medical background , but I do know Lance has never failed and Bonds dances around the subject. That's funny. You wanna condemn Bonds even though he's never tested positive for anything and has been a great baseball player his whole career yet here you stand up for Lance Armstrong who didn't start even showing up on the cycling map until AFTER his cancer. Biased are you? I'd say yes. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: JoeyMFinCoco said: I would be very interested in any scientific article that proves that anabolic steroids cause cancer. http://www.nfpt.com/Libra...angrs.html http://www.drugabuse.gov/...roids.html http://www.healthatoz.com...n_risk.jsp Now if you can show me any scientific articles that defeat these claims, go for it. Those are not scientific articles I asked for. I'm sure you have access to the MEDLINE archive, show me some abstracts there. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: You have a background in medicine? I would be very interested in any scientific article that proves that anabolic steroids cause cancer. Cause and effect... Perhaps there are merely "correlations" between anabolic steroids and cancers. But I'm sure one could probably find a strong "correlation" between most things in life and cancer. Walking down the street, masturbating, smoking, and so on. "I wrote down a dream, folded the note, slipped it in the pocket of my tattered coat, I wrote down a dream, in invisible ink, it never was mine I'm beginning to think..." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: http://www.nfpt.com/Libra...angrs.html http://www.drugabuse.gov/...roids.html http://www.healthatoz.com...n_risk.jsp Now if you can show me any scientific articles that defeat these claims, go for it. Those are not scientific articles I asked for. I'm sure you have access to the MEDLINE archive, show me some abstracts there. So are you trying to say those were some made-up findings by some night school med students? Ok so show me proof they DON'T cause cancer. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Caligula said: JoeyMFinCoco said: I would be very interested in any scientific article that proves that anabolic steroids cause cancer. Cause and effect... Perhaps there are merely "correlations" between anabolic steroids and cancers. But I'm sure one could probably find a strong "correlation" between most things in life and cancer. Walking down the street, masturbating, smoking, and so on. Yeah ok, you show me proof that walking down the street or masturbating causes cancer and I will try and get you elected surgeon general. Steroids have been directly linked to liver and prostate cancer and has been linked to breast cancer. If anyone has any proof denying these claims please step forward. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Caligula said: Fleshofmyflesh said: JoeyCOOCOO - look at my original thread. I didn't even mention the tour. And yes, I think some people face cancer and die because they don't recognize the power of the human mind to overcome things, and the faith and belief that often triumphs over seemingly inevitable odds. My mother died of cancer. Your comment makes me sick. Sorry, fleshy. I have to agree...my brother has leukemia and he won't be living for long. And he is one person that I know that is the most faithful and believes in triumphing this disease...that doesn't make him any less of a person if he dies to this disease. I think Lance armstrong had the ability to fight these things...but lets remember he has a lot more advantages than many other people out there. And thats the reality of it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: Fleshofmyflesh said: Oh no you didn't.....how can you possibly say that about Lance ? If this guy is clean, then...I'd eat my own testicles. True. But please, show me just ONE 100 percent clean guy participating in the Tour. And after that I will show show you some Indy 500 race driver, that do not need a car in order to keep up with the competitors... Everbody does it, that's reality. Bicylce sports is damaged beyond repair, that's sad but true. Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: JoeyMFinCoco said: Those are not scientific articles I asked for. I'm sure you have access to the MEDLINE archive, show me some abstracts there. So are you trying to say those were some made-up findings by some night school med students? Ok so show me proof they DON'T cause cancer. The first article is a joke. For example the guy says "These androgens can be converted to estrogens, or female hormones." Really, there's no such thing as male or female hormones as I'm sure you know. He gives one piece of good advice though: "What’s beyond controversy is steroid contraindications. Some people with existing medical conditions should never use steroids." which is pretty much what I've been saying. The second one mentions increased risk of HIV. Let's get real here. That doesn't happen unless you share needles. There's no reason to do that. If you have a few hundred bucks to purchase steroids for a 10-12 week cycle you can afford $15 for a box with 100 syringe/needle combos. The third one, well it says "Long-term anabolic steroid use can slightly increase the risk of hepatocellular cancer". Again, it's just a claim made by a website. It's as valid as anything I'm saying. Besides it says "can slightly increase the risk". I don't think that equals claiming steroids cause cancer. Can I prove they don't cause cancer? No, I can't, but my question to you was to show me those scientific articles based on actual research that claim steroids cause cancer. All I'm saying is that I have yet to see proof of that. All of the other stuff you read about individual cases where steroids are linked to diseases you can't really draw any conclusions from. The people were never examined for pre-excisting conditions and even so, they would all still be individual cases. Acetaminophen may cause internal bleedings, yet no one will say "don't take any paracetamol because it causes internal bleedings". [Edited 7/4/05 4:09am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: So are you trying to say those were some made-up findings by some night school med students? Ok so show me proof they DON'T cause cancer. The first article is a joke. For example the guy says "These androgens can be converted to estrogens, or female hormones." Really, there's no such thing as male or female hormones as I'm sure you know. He gives one piece of good advice though: "What’s beyond controversy is steroid contraindications. Some people with existing medical conditions should never use steroids." which is pretty much what I've been saying. The second one mentions increased risk of HIV. Let's get real here. That doesn't happen unless you share needles. There's no reason to do that. If you have a few hundred bucks to purchase steroids for a 10-12 week cycle you can afford $15 for a box with 100 syringe/needle combos. The third one, well it says "Long-term anabolic steroid use can slightly increase the risk of hepatocellular cancer". Again, it's just a claim made by a website. It's as valid as anything I'm saying. Besides it says "can slightly increase the risk". I don't think that equals claiming steroids cause cancer. Can I prove they don't cause cancer? No, I can't, but my question to you was to show me those scientific articles based on actual research that claim steroids cause cancer. All I'm saying is that I have yet to see proof of that. All of the other stuff you read about individual cases where steroids are linked to diseases you can't really draw any conclusions from. The people were never examined for pre-excisting conditions and even so, they would all still be individual cases. Acetaminophen may cause internal bleedings, yet no one will say "don't take any paracetamol because it causes internal bleedings". [Edited 7/4/05 4:09am] It basically gets down to what I tried to explain before. Just because there is a correlation, does NOT mean there is a cause and effect relationship. In every case of steroid usage, there is not an outcome of some type of cancer. Yes, steroids are bad. But until a reputable medical journal, society, whatever can put out decades of research showing that teh CAUSE = anabolic steroid usage, and the EFFECT based on that CAUSE = cancer... It's just a correlation. "I wrote down a dream, folded the note, slipped it in the pocket of my tattered coat, I wrote down a dream, in invisible ink, it never was mine I'm beginning to think..." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Getting back to the original topic, why can't FleshofmyFlesh admire who she wants to?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reincarnate said: Getting back to the original topic, why can't FleshofmyFlesh admire who she wants to?
yeah, starting with me!!! damnit! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CoJones said: JoeyMFinCoco said: No, really, it's not debatable. Anyway, it's not unlikely that substance abuse was the cause of his cancer in the first place. I doubt that his admirers care though. Idolization doesn't involve any rational thinking. Instead of just giving your opinions, why can't you state a fact in regards to Mr. Armstrong. Like the fact that he's the most tested individual in cycling. Also that he's physiologicially more adept for cycling than most, the 33% larger heart provides this advantage. Has he ever tested positive for any banned substance? No! Lance Armstrong is an amazing athlete! Not only is his heart 1/3 larger than the ave. male (as you've mentioned) but his lung capacity is almost TWICE the volume of the ave. male with similar physical dimensions. Mentally tough too, not only because of his fight against the disease that spread from his testes, up through to his chest and into his brain, but the fella went through a hard divorce during all this too AND (like Reincarnate said) set up and awareness centre for people who are battling the same killer. He's an inspiration to many. LIVESTRONG 
 "..My work is personal, I'm a working person, I put in work, I work with purpose.." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
senik said: CoJones said: Instead of just giving your opinions, why can't you state a fact in regards to Mr. Armstrong. Like the fact that he's the most tested individual in cycling. Also that he's physiologicially more adept for cycling than most, the 33% larger heart provides this advantage. Has he ever tested positive for any banned substance? No! Lance Armstrong is an amazing athlete! Not only is his heart 1/3 larger than the ave. male (as you've mentioned) but his lung capacity is almost TWICE the volume of the ave. male with similar physical dimensions. Mentally tough too, not only because of his fight against the disease that spread from his testes, up through to his chest and into his brain, but the fella went through a hard divorce during all this too AND (like Reincarnate said) set up and awareness centre for people who are battling the same killer. He's an inspiration to many. LIVESTRONG
I agree that his mental strength had a lot to do with him beating cancer, but since he's such a rare physical specimen (along with what you said, he's also mentioned that his artery is three times thicker than an average one) I'm sometimes wondering if that could have played a part too? I definitely think they should look into that. Imagine if we would discover that the cure for cancer is dialiting the artery or something, wouldn't that be pretty cool? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: So are you trying to say those were some made-up findings by some night school med students? Ok so show me proof they DON'T cause cancer. The first article is a joke. For example the guy says "These androgens can be converted to estrogens, or female hormones." Really, there's no such thing as male or female hormones as I'm sure you know. He gives one piece of good advice though: "What’s beyond controversy is steroid contraindications. Some people with existing medical conditions should never use steroids." which is pretty much what I've been saying. The second one mentions increased risk of HIV. Let's get real here. That doesn't happen unless you share needles. There's no reason to do that. If you have a few hundred bucks to purchase steroids for a 10-12 week cycle you can afford $15 for a box with 100 syringe/needle combos. The third one, well it says "Long-term anabolic steroid use can slightly increase the risk of hepatocellular cancer". Again, it's just a claim made by a website. It's as valid as anything I'm saying. Besides it says "can slightly increase the risk". I don't think that equals claiming steroids cause cancer. Can I prove they don't cause cancer? No, I can't, but my question to you was to show me those scientific articles based on actual research that claim steroids cause cancer. All I'm saying is that I have yet to see proof of that. All of the other stuff you read about individual cases where steroids are linked to diseases you can't really draw any conclusions from. The people were never examined for pre-excisting conditions and even so, they would all still be individual cases. Acetaminophen may cause internal bleedings, yet no one will say "don't take any paracetamol because it causes internal bleedings". [Edited 7/4/05 4:09am] But you started off by saying this the topic of roids causing cancer wasn't debateable and now you've changed your tune. And how you found either of those articles jokes is beyond me because if they were jokes then your stance would still be Steroids Don't Cause Cancer" and now you've admitted that you can't prove that it doesn't. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
retina said: I agree that his mental strength had a lot to do with him beating cancer, but since he's such a rare physical specimen (along with what you said, he's also mentioned that his artery is three times thicker than an average one) I'm sometimes wondering if that could have played a part too? I definitely think they should look into that. Imagine if we would discover that the cure for cancer is dialiting the artery or something, wouldn't that be pretty cool?
It's likely to be a combination of many co-factors such as genetics, extraordinary training and discipline to nurture innate talent and strict/correct diet and nutrition. The man's a fine tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics! "..My work is personal, I'm a working person, I put in work, I work with purpose.." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Caligula said: JoeyMFinCoco said: The first article is a joke. For example the guy says "These androgens can be converted to estrogens, or female hormones." Really, there's no such thing as male or female hormones as I'm sure you know. He gives one piece of good advice though: "What’s beyond controversy is steroid contraindications. Some people with existing medical conditions should never use steroids." which is pretty much what I've been saying. The second one mentions increased risk of HIV. Let's get real here. That doesn't happen unless you share needles. There's no reason to do that. If you have a few hundred bucks to purchase steroids for a 10-12 week cycle you can afford $15 for a box with 100 syringe/needle combos. The third one, well it says "Long-term anabolic steroid use can slightly increase the risk of hepatocellular cancer". Again, it's just a claim made by a website. It's as valid as anything I'm saying. Besides it says "can slightly increase the risk". I don't think that equals claiming steroids cause cancer. Can I prove they don't cause cancer? No, I can't, but my question to you was to show me those scientific articles based on actual research that claim steroids cause cancer. All I'm saying is that I have yet to see proof of that. All of the other stuff you read about individual cases where steroids are linked to diseases you can't really draw any conclusions from. The people were never examined for pre-excisting conditions and even so, they would all still be individual cases. Acetaminophen may cause internal bleedings, yet no one will say "don't take any paracetamol because it causes internal bleedings". [Edited 7/4/05 4:09am] It basically gets down to what I tried to explain before. Just because there is a correlation, does NOT mean there is a cause and effect relationship. In every case of steroid usage, there is not an outcome of some type of cancer. Yes, steroids are bad. But until a reputable medical journal, society, whatever can put out decades of research showing that teh CAUSE = anabolic steroid usage, and the EFFECT based on that CAUSE = cancer... It's just a correlation. Are you serious? That's like saying there is no link between smoking and lung cancer, right? And you're basing this conclusion off the fact that not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer, right? That's not even close to being a smart statement. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
senik said: retina said: I agree that his mental strength had a lot to do with him beating cancer, but since he's such a rare physical specimen (along with what you said, he's also mentioned that his artery is three times thicker than an average one) I'm sometimes wondering if that could have played a part too? I definitely think they should look into that. Imagine if we would discover that the cure for cancer is dialiting the artery or something, wouldn't that be pretty cool?
It's likely to be a combination of many co-factors such as genetics, extraordinary training and discipline to nurture innate talent and strict/correct diet and nutrition. The man's a fine tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics! Or he could be beating the drug tests. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: senik said: It's likely to be a combination of many co-factors such as genetics, extraordinary training and discipline to nurture innate talent and strict/correct diet and nutrition. The man's a fine tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics! Or he could be beating the drug tests. Or he could just be a finely tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics! 
"..My work is personal, I'm a working person, I put in work, I work with purpose.." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: JoeyMFinCoco said: The first article is a joke. For example the guy says "These androgens can be converted to estrogens, or female hormones." Really, there's no such thing as male or female hormones as I'm sure you know. He gives one piece of good advice though: "What’s beyond controversy is steroid contraindications. Some people with existing medical conditions should never use steroids." which is pretty much what I've been saying. The second one mentions increased risk of HIV. Let's get real here. That doesn't happen unless you share needles. There's no reason to do that. If you have a few hundred bucks to purchase steroids for a 10-12 week cycle you can afford $15 for a box with 100 syringe/needle combos. The third one, well it says "Long-term anabolic steroid use can slightly increase the risk of hepatocellular cancer". Again, it's just a claim made by a website. It's as valid as anything I'm saying. Besides it says "can slightly increase the risk". I don't think that equals claiming steroids cause cancer. Can I prove they don't cause cancer? No, I can't, but my question to you was to show me those scientific articles based on actual research that claim steroids cause cancer. All I'm saying is that I have yet to see proof of that. All of the other stuff you read about individual cases where steroids are linked to diseases you can't really draw any conclusions from. The people were never examined for pre-excisting conditions and even so, they would all still be individual cases. Acetaminophen may cause internal bleedings, yet no one will say "don't take any paracetamol because it causes internal bleedings". [Edited 7/4/05 4:09am] But you started off by saying this the topic of roids causing cancer wasn't debateable and now you've changed your tune. And how you found either of those articles jokes is beyond me because if they were jokes then your stance would still be Steroids Don't Cause Cancer" and now you've admitted that you can't prove that it doesn't. I asked you to show me scientific proof of it. Instead you come up with those articles. If I misinterpret some medical research and put on my site that steroids cause cancer does that mean it's true? In the first article you linked to the guy is talking about male and female hormones! He can't even get the basic principles right. The last link lists some liver cancer risk factors and two lines are about anabolic steroids. No really, you came up with some great articles. Steroids cause cancer because I can't prove that they don't. [Edited 7/4/05 8:54am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fleshofmyflesh said: JoeyMFinCoco said: If he survived, but never got on his bike again no one would have been talking about him. That's the truth. But that doesn't lessen HIM, that lessens us. I admire his tenacity, but I think he's a total ass for leaving his wife when she's the one who stood by him, no doubt, while he was sick. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
senik said: TheCrucialExperience said: Or he could be beating the drug tests. Or he could just be a finely tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics!
Exactly. So you can't be too sure either way yet you're doing just that in favor of him. Intersting. "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JoeyMFinCoco said: TheCrucialExperience said: But you started off by saying this the topic of roids causing cancer wasn't debateable and now you've changed your tune. And how you found either of those articles jokes is beyond me because if they were jokes then your stance would still be Steroids Don't Cause Cancer" and now you've admitted that you can't prove that it doesn't. I asked you to show me scientific proof of it. Instead you come up with those articles. If I misinterpret some medical research and put on my site that steroids cause cancer does that mean it's true? In the first article you linked to the guy is talking about male and female hormones! He can't even get the basic principles right. The last link lists some liver cancer risk factors and two lines are about anabolic steroids. No really, you came up with some great articles. Steroids cause cancer because I can't prove that they don't.
[Edited 7/4/05 8:54am] I showed my proof, and you chose to ignore it. Now, where is YOUR proof that steroids DON'T cause cancer and why did you change your tune about roids NOT causing cancer? "But what of black women? . . . I most sincerely doubt if any other race of women could have brought its fineness up through so devilish a fire." -- W.E.B. Du Bois -- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
May I interject to say I like his bike, too? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: JoeyMFinCoco said: I asked you to show me scientific proof of it. Instead you come up with those articles. If I misinterpret some medical research and put on my site that steroids cause cancer does that mean it's true? In the first article you linked to the guy is talking about male and female hormones! He can't even get the basic principles right. The last link lists some liver cancer risk factors and two lines are about anabolic steroids. No really, you came up with some great articles. Steroids cause cancer because I can't prove that they don't.
[Edited 7/4/05 8:54am] I showed my proof, and you chose to ignore it. Now, where is YOUR proof that steroids DON'T cause cancer and why did you change your tune about roids NOT causing cancer? None of the articles you linked to had any references to medical research to back up their claims. With your background in medicine I'm sure you know that's essential, but none of that matters because I can't prove that steroids don't cause cancer. I lose, you win. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheCrucialExperience said: senik said: Or he could just be a finely tuned instrument of human bio-mechanics!
Exactly. So you can't be too sure either way yet you're doing just that in favor of him. Intersting. Well you (or anyone else) couldn't be sure if you weren't conceived in a test tube, coz you weren't consciously there to record it in your log book now, were you? The allegations you make can be more disproved than proved! 
"..My work is personal, I'm a working person, I put in work, I work with purpose.." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |