|
|
|
|
#1
10-29-2002, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you do when two important principles butt heads??
I was reading today's Tribune (Tempo) ethics column. A woman was closing a business deal with a real estate agent. She extended her hand to shake his, and he told her that since he's an orthodox Jew, he can't touch women. She was torn between her need to respect people's religion and her inability to reconcile the obvious slap to women in general (and herself in particular).
I think I would have felt the same way, and I'm not quite sure how I would have handled it. How would you have handled this and why? I'd particularly like to hear from our Jewish friends and see if any of them run into this problem. ;j 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#3
10-29-2002, 08:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What do you do when two important principles butt heads??
Quote:
By the way, if orthodox Jews really can't touch women how come the group hasn't disappeared centuries ago from a zero birth rate?
|
|
#4
10-29-2002, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simmons: I'm guessing that it's not that Orthodox Jews can't "touch women" per se, but that they're not allowed to touch women who aren't their wives. (but you knew that
 )If I'd been that woman, I would have merely withdrawn my hand with a startled "Oh", and thought nothing more of it, beyond the following brief thought: "Um, somebody who isn't allowed by his religion to shake hands with women goes into business as a realtor, a business where "people skills" are preeminent? Wow. Best o' luck, buddy.  "I wouldn't see it as a cosmic "obvious slap to women in general" any more than I would see a female Islamic realtor wearing a hajib as an obvious slap to women in general. Her religion says she wears a head covering; his religion says he won't shake hands with me. So? << shrug >>
|
|
#5
10-29-2002, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, here's the Q & A:
Q. The courteous and competent real estate agent I'd just hired to rent my house shocked and offended me when, after we signed our contract, he refused to shake my hand, saying that as an Orthodox Jew he did not touch women. As a feminist, I oppose sex discrimination of all sorts. However, I also support freedom of religious expression. How do I balance these conflicting values? Should I tear up our contract? -- J.L., New York A. This culture clash may not allow you to reconcile the values you esteem. Though the agent dealt you only a petty slight, without ill intent, you're entitled to work with someone who will treat you with the dignity and respect he shows his male clients. If this involved only his own person -- adherence to laws concerning diet or dress, for example -- you should, of course, be tolerant. But his actions directly affect you. And sexism is sexism, even when motivated by religious convictions. I believe you should tear up your contract. Had he declined to shake hands with everyone, there would be no problem. What he may not do, however, is render a class of people untouchable. Were he, say, an airline ticket clerk who refused to touch Asian-Americans, he would find himself in hot water and rightly so. Bias on the basis of sex is equally discreditable. Some religions (and some civil societies) that assign men and women distinct spheres argue that while those two spheres are different, neither is inferior to the other. This sort of reasoning was rejected in 1954 in the great school desegregation case, Brown vs. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court declared that separate is by its very nature unequal. That's a pretty good ethical guideline for ordinary life. There's a terrific moment in "Cool Hand Luke," when a prison guard about to put Paul Newman in the sweatbox says -- I quote from memory -- "Sorry, Luke, just doing my job." Newman replies, "Calling it your job don't make it right, boss." Religion, same deal. Calling an offensive action religious doesn't make it right. I tend to agree with it. I'm not sure what purpose the "no touching" thing serves, particularly in modern times. Maybe someone can elaborate on that. I'm intolerant of the Catholic church not ordaining female priests. I'm intolerant of Muslims calling holy wars on others. Why should a person take that kind of treatment in the business world? Which comes first -- religious respect or human respect?
|
|
#6
10-29-2002, 09:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And, yes, I would agree that he might be in the wrong line of work.
|
|
#7
10-29-2002, 09:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Could someone with actual knowledge please chime into this thread?
|
|
#9
10-29-2002, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am astounded by the stupidity of the response the letter writer received.
Not shaking someone's hand is not a matter of "Ethics," especially in light of the fact that the man was presumbly obeying his God. "Sex discrimination" implies unfair treatment based on sex - the loss of a substantial right or privilege or material thing. Nobody has a right to a handshake, and a handshake is not a thing with any real value. The man did not deny the woman any business - he did not say "I will not do business with you because you're a woman." He did not cause her to lose anything substantial. He did business with her. Where is it written you have earned a handshake when you sign a contract? Or to use a counterexample, if a Muslim woman were to tell a man she can't touch him, does that mean he cannot ethically do business with him? I know a Muslim woman who won't shake hands with men. It never occurred to me there was an ethical problem with this, because it doesn't cost me anything substantive; it's trivial. If she refused to do business with me because I was a man (or a non-Muslim, or white, or whatever) that would be different. That is real discrimination. Denying a handshake is not. It's a stupid thing to complain about. You don't have a right to make someone else touch you.
|
|
#10
10-29-2002, 12:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Simmons is correct. An orthodox Jew avoids physical contact with women he doesn't know well because if the woman is menstruating the contact will render him ritually unclean. To become ritually clean he must immerse himself in the mikva (ritual bath). He would most likely not worry about this with women he knows well, because they would not offer to shake hands if they were unclean. If you were a member of his shule, he would probably wait for you to extend your hand, and if you did so he would shake it.
The orthodox rabbi who was principal of my daughter's school handled this issue by assuming that a) everybody knew he was orthodox and what the handshaking issue was, and b) anybody who got within a couple feet of him was ritually clean. The school accepted students through eighth grade, and the principal had no reservations about giving hugs to girls who could very well be ritually unclean. (And no, the hugs were not interpreted by anybody as being sexual harassment.) My daughter's Hebrew teacher handled it roughly the way the real estate agent did. He sent out postcards to the parents of all his students before the first scheduled parent-teacher conference explaining why he could not shake hands with women. Orthodox Jews do not regard the law of Family Purity to be demeaning to women. They regard it as a form of respect to women. Chava
|
|
#11
10-29-2002, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for explaining Chava, but I still don't get it. How is it a form of respect to women to consider them "unclean"? On the face it sounds pretty demeaning to me.
|
|
#12
10-29-2002, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As far as the original question. If it was someone I was just doing business with one time I would probably think he was weird and then forget about it. I don't know that I would be willing to do business on a regular basis with someone who wouldn't touch my hand because I might be on my period.
If he refused to touch my vagina I might understand..... 
|
|
#13
10-29-2002, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't see why it's disrespectful to anyone at all. I mean, some people don't like to shake hands because of germs?
Or in certain cultures, it's considered too familiar to shake hands, and so each one bows in greeting instead? I think the response to the letter is stupid, too.
|
|
#16
10-29-2002, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
10-29-2002, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(a) dumb. Sheesh, "courteous and competent" real estate agents are hard to find, and you're going to dump him just for this? (b) probably discriminatory. You're going to dump him just because of his religious beliefs? Because that's what it would amount to, and I think that's a no-no. (c) probably not legal otherwise, questions of discrimination aside. Can you tear up a contract just because the other signatory refuses to shake your hand afterwards? Lawyers? Anyone? Anyone?
|
|
#18
10-29-2002, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's a handshake, people, not an act of discrimination. He performed his duties in his capacity as a real estate salesperson. It isn't even strange that he should persue this line of work. The contrary involves him disobeying his religion just for a measly handshake.
There is nothing demeaning about it. He sold you a house. He refused no goods nor services. I am comfortable in assuming he even smiled now and again. 
|
|
#19
10-29-2002, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry eris I still think that it is demeaning. Let say, he shook her husband's hand and he shook the seller's hand but then refuses to shake her's because she may be "unclean"?
I am sorry, but the message is that women on their periods are dirty and by extension all women are dirty because you never know when one might be bleeding. How is that not demeaning? I really wish someone Jewish would get in here and explain this better. I keep thinking there has to be a good reason but I am not coming up with anything on my own.
|
|
#20
10-29-2002, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Conceivable, it's a free country. If Mr. Weiskopf wants to continue an old practice based on the uncleanliness of menstruating women, that's his thing. You are free to be offended.
The OP concerned a matter of ethics. The question is whether or not it is ethical to do business with this man. It is not a question of whether or not you agree with the specifics of a Jewish custom. There is nothing about this custom that suggests a violation of ETHICS. You may choose to think it is mean, or demeaning, or that it hurts your feelings. However, the central question is a different one; is it ethical to do business with him? In my opinion it obviously is. There is no real ethical concern here. There are many religious beliefs I do not agree with; that doesn't mean it's unethical for me to do business with people that hold those beliefs. On the other hand, it IS unethical to tear up a legally binding contract just because you didn't get a friggin' handshake. The advice given in the column was - I'll say it again - amazingly stupid; the person writing the column quite literally does not seem to understand what "Ethics" means in a business sense, does not understand the concept of contracts, and can't tell the difference between a genuine act of discrimination and a personal statement of religious belief.
|
|
#21
10-29-2002, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#22
10-29-2002, 03:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The appeal of the Family Purity law to those who practice it is:
A woman is not subjected to continual demands from her husband. I know this doesn't seem like it's necessarily an advantage when you're 19 and overflowing with hormones, but some people appreciate some time off once they are no longer adolescents. A woman is not required to have relations with her husband at a time when she may be physically uncomfortable or embarrassed. A period of enforced separation results in a honeymoon-like experience when the separation is over. This link gives a pretty good overview. The required separation time works out to about 12 days, which for most women winds up coinciding with her most fertile time. In Conceivable, I AM Jewish, and I am doing my best to explain this. I'm sorry if I'm not getting through. Chava
|
|
#24
10-29-2002, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is disrespectful because in our society we typically shake hands when introduced to someone especially in a business environment. If you shake the hands of everyone else and refuse to shake mine then I'm going to be insulted. I don't care if you're afraid of germs, I don't care if you don't like my nationality, and I don't care if your religion forbids it. If you shake their hands and refuse to shake mine you're telling me I'm not as worthy as they are. Quote:
In those cultures it would be considered rude not to bow. Quote:
Marc
|
|
#25
10-29-2002, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that some of the folks here have justified the torturing of Jews until they convert during the Inquisition because it was the Christian custom of the time. Or not doing business with Jews, or requiring Jews to live in ghettos. It was wrong. And it is wrong to refuse to shake hands with women because of the mere possibility that they might have holy cooties. Women do not have cooties, holy or otherwise, whether you call it unclean or something else. There is nothing unclean about shaking hands with a woman who is menstrating. The custom is shaking hands, not fingering her cooter.
|
|
#27
10-29-2002, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
He didn't give her a handshake? BFD, I say.
|
|
#28
10-29-2002, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My goodness.
I guess multiculturalism and respect for diversity applies only selectively. I second the posters above who noted that there is no particular duty on the part of anyone to shake anyone else's hand. Frankly, I am Sparticus, if I met you, I might refuse to shake your hand, because I dislike shaking the hands of people intolerant of Jewish religious practices. You would be free, of course, to choose not to patronize my business in return. You offer your confident assertion that there nothing wrong with shaking hands with all women. Orthodox Jews believe that G-d commanded them to behave otherwise. You are free, of course, to disbelieve this... but you are not free to petulantly demand that they disbelieve this, or that they act in ways contrary to that belief. And that goes for the rest of you. No one is entitled to a handshake. People in this country are entitled, however, to practice their religion to the extent it doesn't interfere with others' rights. - Rick
|
|
#29
10-29-2002, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't believe that neither zev nor IzzyR beat me to this.
It is not sex discrimination, and it has nothing to do with the laws of menstrual uncleanliness. In Judaism, is it considered immodest for people of either sex to touch a member of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married or closely related by blood. If the real estate agent were an Orthodox Jewish female, and the buyer a male, she would have refused to shake his hand as well! That's not sex discrimination. It is done so as not to arouse one's sexual desires - in either sex. (Obviously, in the case of a married couple, the urge is not considered wrong, and in the case of close relations, it is not feared that they would ever think of one another sexually.) On the other hand, it is generally accepted amongst Orthodox Jews that a handshake for the sake of politeness is preferable to letting someone feel insulted due to their not understanding. Still, I cannot help but be astounded at how closed-minded and uninformed the columnist in this "Tribune" appears to be.
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks." -- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
|
|
#30
10-29-2002, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay. Thanks for the links eris and Chava. They explain a lot. The Laws of Family Purity make a lot of sense even to an outsider. I can certainly see how they would be considered respectful to women.
cmkeller, your explanation also makes sense. If that is the reason he would not shake hands I would still think it silly but not be insulted. The questions I was raising had to do with the idea the first couple of posters put forth that he wouldn't shake her hand because she might be on her period and therefor "unclean". It seems that the two ideas got mixed up. People are entitled to practice their religion as they see fit. However, I am not a bigot if I question religious practices that seem demean me as a person or call me "unclean".
|
|
#33
10-30-2002, 09:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Didn't you see The Age of Innocence? He kisses her wrist--and she's wearing a glove on it, and he gets all hot.
|
|
#34
10-30-2002, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think this is one of those traditions that hasn't evolved with the people who practice it. I suppose tradition has it's place, but this one does seem a bit antiquated.
Would an orthodox Jew touch a stranger to push them out from in front of a speeding car, or to otherwise save the life of someone?
|
|
#36
10-30-2002, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
EchoKitty, the answer to your question is yes, they would. To save a life, one is permitted to disobey almost any of the laws.
The Jewish faith is thousands of years old. In a sense, I suppose that counts as "antiquated," yes.
|
|
#37
10-30-2002, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
10-30-2002, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Chava
|
|
#39
10-30-2002, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, not to get too far off the subject, but here's another Jewish issue regarding women. Got it from MSNBC:
IN HER NEW video for the Bond theme song “Die Another Day,” Madonna appears with Hebrew words written on her and wearing a sacred Jewish prayer item, says a source. The singer has become deeply involved in Kaballah, a Jewish form of mysticism, but the use of the sacred images is said to be “offending” and “outraging” Jewish leaders, according to various reports. “The Hebrew tattoo she has means fight your pridefulness, your ego,” one source said. But apparently one of the items she wears, a tefillin, is only worn by men. The source says Madonna might be trying to have an encore of her “Like A Prayer” controversy that outraged some Catholic leaders. Madonna’s spokeswoman says that’s not the case. She says that Madonna had everything in the video approved in advance by Kaballah leaders. “She feels there is nothing offensive” in the video, the spokeswoman tells The Scoop. So, are Kaballah leaders considered "legit" by other Jewish leaders? Why would this item only be allowed for men? Are Jews pretty much like Catholics in the sense that the men pretty much run the show and the women are just "helpers"? Jewish folk here...what are your opinions on the Madonna thing? And the mysticism thing (which I know absolutely NOTHING about)?
|
|
#40
10-30-2002, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kabala is mysticism, based on the study of the Zohar, the Book of Light. There are students of kabala in every branch of modern Judaism, from orthodox to reconstructionist. Kabala is frequently viewed as Not a Good Thing by rabbis for the reason that it is studied by people (including non-Jews) who don't know much about Judaism in the first place. Kabala is traditionally regarded as dangerous to students who are not previously versed in Torah and Talmud.
There is nothing about study of kabala that makes you an authority on Jewish law (halakha). There is also nothing about it that makes you unqualified to rule on halakha. The usual rule is that if you want to find out what is allowed by halakha you consult an orthodox rabbi (not a kabalist). However, a reasonably competent conservative or reform rabbi will also know what the rules are. They just won't think it's quite as important to follow some of them to the letter. Tefillin are traditionally worn only by men. However, women are not forbidden to wear them. (The daughters of a famous medieval rabbi, Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, were supposed to have prayed with tefillin.) The problem that I see is that tefillin are ritual objects associated with prayer. The are not worn during ordinary activities, and there are special blessings that are said when they are put on. The parchment writings inside the little boxes are treated with the same respect as the Torah scroll itself. So I can see that observant Jews might be offended by a non-Jew using tefillin (even without the parchments) in a context other than traditional prayer. The reason women don't normally pray with tefillin is that they are not obligated to do so. The three-time-daily prayers, which are the ones said with tefillin are requred of men but not of women because they must be said at certain times of the day and women may have responsibility for children which prevents them from meeting that schedule. A woman may [i]choose[/]i to take on a traditionally male obligation, but only if she will not prevent a man from fulfilling his obligation. Chava
|
|
#41
10-30-2002, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, Chava. Very enlightening. Do Kaballah normally use the tefillin in activities outside of prayer? Also, what are the implications if the person studying Kaballah IS well-versed in the Torah and other traditional Jewish teachings? Are they still considered fringe?
|
|
#42
10-30-2002, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#43
10-31-2002, 09:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
IzzyR, you are no doubt correct in your assessment of Madonna's kabala leaders. Some of the novels of Chaim Potok describe how this law affects people in their everyday lives (The Gift of Asher Lev comes to mind.) Faye Kellerman (police detective novels) also describes it, if you can wade through her stuff. EchoKitty, the study of kabala is perfectly acceptable to the most traditional Jews for students sufficiently versed in the more basic studies. (The traditional rule is that a man must be 40 before he begins the study of the Zohar.) I should also say that classes in kabala are a common offering in liberal congregations, and that the people who offer such classes and their students are not regarded as fringe Jews for the most part. There are prominent scholars among Reform Jews who state publicly and loudly that kabala is pure balderdash. (Liberal here means conservative, reform, reconstructionist, Jewish renewal, and even some orthodox congregations.) As far as I know, even kabalists don't use tefillin for anything but prayer. Chava
|
|
#44
10-31-2002, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
IzzyR, you are no doubt correct in your assessment of Madonna's kabala leaders. Some of the novels of Chaim Potok describe how this law affects people in their everyday lives (The Gift of Asher Lev comes to mind.) Faye Kellerman (police detective novels) also describes it, if you can wade through her stuff. EchoKitty, the study of kabala is perfectly acceptable to the most traditional Jews for students sufficiently versed in the more basic studies. (The traditional rule is that a man must be 40 before he begins the study of the Zohar.) I should also say that classes in kabala are a common offering in liberal congregations, and that the people who offer such classes and their students are not regarded as fringe Jews for the most part. There are prominent scholars among Reform Jews who state publicly and loudly that kabala is pure balderdash. (Liberal here means conservative, reform, reconstructionist, Jewish renewal, and even some orthodox congregations.) As far as I know, even kabalists don't use tefillin for anything but prayer. Chava
|
|
#45
10-31-2002, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The people who practice family purity do not do so because the laws of becoming "ritually unclean" are still relevant - they do it because the Bible specifically prohibits sexual contact under these circumstances - that is still quite relevant. The fact that a person who violates this becomes ritually unclean themselves is not directly related (though I imagine it has some theological connection). Your statement that "Women are not made ritually unclean by other women, and neither are animals or objects" is false (you are correct about animals and some types of objects). And this: "And a Jew who observes this law according to halakha would, in fact, not touch his daughter once she became old enough to menstruate" is utterly rediculous. Seriously, as you are clearly ignorant of these matters and basically have no idea of what you are talking about, I would suggest that you refrain from putting forth any more "facts" about these matters. Quote:
|
|
#46
10-31-2002, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, I think both Chava and Izzy are Jews...the question is, Orthodox, Reform? I take it you can be as varied on these things as the different flavors of Christian can be varied on their rules and regs. I've sort of hijacked my own thread, but I like where the conversation is going, so if no one minds, I'd like to follow this thread to its natural death.
|
|
#47
10-31-2002, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Izzy is Orthodox, as am I.
I can't say what type Chava is. What I can say is that she's wrong on this issue, and Izzy and I are right. The purity matters related to mentruation (and, for that matter, are true for men's semen as well) are relevant only in the context of the not-currently-extant Holy Temple. The term "family purity" for the sexual regulations that govern relations between husband and wife during menstruation obscure this. Fact: Jewish law does not forbit physical contact between father and daughter or between mother and son, regardless of the female's menstrual state. If the reason for the prohibition on physical contact between strangers of the opposite sex were menstruation-related, that would not be the case. Chaim Mattis Keller
|
|
#48
10-31-2002, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, now you've got me confused. I am hearing that it is NOT okay to touch ANY female, even FAMILY, when she is menstruating. But many people don't practice it.
If not, what is the not touching thing about? (Sorry...I'm having a rough comprehension day) Type verry slloowwwly.
|
|
#49
10-31-2002, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok, here's today's lesson:
Three separate issues. 1) The touch of a menstruating woman (as well as that of numerous others types of people, as Chaim points out) will transfer a "ritual uncleanliness" to any Jewish person of either gender. Also to food and utensils. This was primarily relevant back during the days of the Temple. This, because there are rules against eating meat from sacrificial offerings, as well as certain types of tithes (or entering the Temple site) when in an impure state. Back in those days, the more religious people were careful to remain in a "pure" state whenever possible. Today, these laws have largely fallen by the wayside, both because there are no sacrificial offerings, and because being in the same room as a corpse also renders someone "impure" in a manner that can only be rectified by a certain type of sacrifice, which is no longer available. So everyone is impure anyway. 2) There is additionally a prohibition against sexual relations with a woman who is in a menstrual status. This is very much relevant today, and is what Chava refers to when she speaks of "Family Purity". 3) Social physical contact between men and women is prohibited due to arousal reasons, as Chaim pointed out.
|
|
#50
10-31-2002, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There may be some value in point out that there are various types of laws.
The basis of halakhah are the 613 mitzvot - commandments - that are found in Torah, the first five books of the Bible. They are unalterable. A gezeirah is a law created by the rabbis of old to prevent people from accidentally violating a Torah mitzvah - a good and commonly-used analogy is that a gezeirah can be considered a "fence" around the commandments. For example, the commandment prohibits cooking the flesh of the calf in the milk of its mother. But what if a slatternly housemaid were to fail to propoerly clean the dishes? Unknowingly, you might mix the flesh of the calf from lunch with the milk of its mother in the form of your cheese at dinner. To avoid this, kosher households use one set of dishes for dairy meals, and another for meat. Two sets of dishes are not technically mandated in the Torah, but the rule provides a safety net to insure that the Torah's law is not violated. Then there is the takkanah, a rule instituted by the rabbis, such as the lighting of the candles at Hanukhah, which is never so much as mentioned in Torah. All of these are binding on observant Jews. Being a Roman Catholic myself, I suppose the following statement will have little probative effect, but cmkeller and IzzyR are correct. There is no generally accepted halakhic rule that forbids physical contact between father and daughter or between mother and son, regardless of the menustral cycle involved at the time. I will toss a bone to Chava and say that I suppose it is possible that a certain community has a such a minhag - a locally observed custom - but I am unaware of any such, and would appreciate a cite. - Rick
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
