Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3148 of them)

hi guys, i'm here to defend garrison keillor! you knew i would! if you don't like/listen to keillor it's insurprising you don't (or don't want to) get his tone! he certainly wasn't being ironic/parodic! you couldn't have forgetten that this is the guy who's built a whole career on embodying ridiculous stereotypes about upper midwestern lutheran scandinavians! who he obviously hates! I like how Dan Savage counted the stereotypes but didn't bold Keillor's use of the word itself! like some of these dudes said!

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

who is less cool: GK or Hillary?!

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 23:58 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I have to admit: this is pretty bad and muddled, as far as speech and tone go, but even in those limited quotes you can spot a smattering of the dry Keillor-funny lurking about -- "I suppose we'll get used to it" and "The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men," the latter of which Savage seems slightly unsure what to do with and then just plumps for taking it at face value. I have no clue what Keillor's thrust here is, which seems to make it a failure as far as topical humor goes, but it certainly doesn't read like an entirely straightforward statement of opinion.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

in a way that's even worse, because it's stupider.

― Maria, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:07 (nineteen years ago)

Well yeah, totally failed humor on topics that are fairly serious to other people = big mistake.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:26 (nineteen years ago)

I think what he's saying is pretty clear. It is that marriage traditionally (i.e. when he grew up) has existed for the benefit of children, and that (never mind that it really isn't any more due to narcissistic breeders (like himself, apparently, though he doesn't say this)) this should continue to be the point of marriage whatever form it might take. He doesn't say out loud whether he likes gay marriage per se, but he does say that he thinks diversity is a beautiful thing even if it doesn't look anything like his childhood. Ultimately, I think the implicit message is that while the debate isn't going to be resolved soon, in the meantime it (and perhaps eventually the policy) should be framed around what's good for children rather than the rights or wrongs of adults.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:34 (nineteen years ago)

or if you're more inclined to see him as less affectionate about his roots, you could read him to be saying sort of the flipside of my version - that he's ripping the "it's about the kids" attack by focusing on straight marriage and comparing the real results of the breakdown of monogamy with the fantasy evils of polka dots and chartreuse

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 00:53 (nineteen years ago)

this question is kinda rhetorical, but being single 4 life maybe I'm not privy to some of the legal intircacies of state-approved unions, so please enlighten: why the hell is the state involved in marriage to begin with? If two consenting adults want to get hitched they should contact two people: a clergyperson of their choosing (if they so wish) and an attorney. I realize there are tax benefits, but what are the other practical implications of government-sanctioned marriage?

― will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:08 (nineteen years ago)

(i suppose adoption rights would be another)

― will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:09 (nineteen years ago)

(and health care)

― will, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:18 (nineteen years ago)

There's an Episcopalian church in Amherst, MA. that has decided not to perform ANY marriages because of the Anglican rift.
Yay Western Massachusetts!
Keillor is funny. But this particular piece is not. I also think that calling Keillor out for his infedelities is very appropriate, in this case.
I really could not give a shit about who does what with whom. But having multiple children with multiple partners AND THEN writing a column about values and fidelity is fucking stupid.

― aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:25 (nineteen years ago)

some of Dan Savage's comments:

Keillor is the worst thing on KUOW. Does anyone under 60 listen to him?

...

I think Keillor is possibly being satirical in this piece.

...

"It's Sat-tor-doy, the band is ploy-in..."

Fuck that dufus. He's gotten a little too carried away playing the fictional and folkloric sherrif, waving his arms importantly to his audience against the hard plastic backdrop inside the PHC snow globe.

...

Dan you're right most of the time, but not this time. Garrison's article is about (a) how much the world has changed and that gay marriage is part of that change and we've all got to accept that and (b) about how marriage is about children and how gay couples will have to learn to make all the same compromises as hetero couples. It is a pro-gay, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gay parenting article.

...

Hey y'all, turn down your sensitivity meters. This is not an anti gay rant. He's joking about how parents should be boring. This article is boring, not really that entertaining, and totally harmless.

GK has been an out liberal for a long time, and it's foolish to treat our friends as enemies. He's pro-gay. It's even in his book "Homegrown Democrat."

Dan, you're usually the guy with the sense to tell people to relax. You're going to have to take this back. It's totally not cool to smear people in this way.

...

Again, a bunch of humorless pinheads have your knickers in a twist over someone you have no clue about.

Garrison Keillor, whether you like him or not, is not a fuddy-duddy old nostalgist. He doesn't think "life was better in the thirties", and if you think that after hearing him you're an idiot. You're certainly incapable of grasping the humor in what he does.

But no: you lot assume that everything is or should be a serious opinion piece, as strident as possible, and if someone makes a joke he or she should be dragged off to rehabilitation camp. Such is life in Stalinist America.

Garrison Keillor is a humorist. You may not think he's funny, which is fine. But you should at least make an effort to understand what you think you're attacking.

"Lake Wobegon" is where every one of those stereotypes and soft-focus idealized visions of the imaginary past live. The entire show is an exploration of that. Keillor is not retailing these stereotypes, he is responding to them.

I suppose the tag line "where all the children are above average" makes you scream at your radio in rage, "HOW CAN THEY ALL BE ABOVE AVERAGE, YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD?????"

Garrison Keillor's approach is going to win a lot more converts to the cause of gay marriage than anything Dan Savage says or does anywhere. Grandma doesn't read Dan Savage; he mostly preaches to the converted. Keillor is telling Grandma, very gently, that's it's OK, I know Uncle Albert wears those chartreuse trousers that upset you, and you're afraid because some of The Gays don't even go to Sunday Service, but they're not going to burst into your living room and make you look at their cock rings. It'll be fine; we'll get used to Bruce and Albert the same way we got used to Sally's third husband.

Keillor is a supporter of gay marriage, you understand that, right? He's been a good friend to gays, you were aware of that, right? He's probably more comfortable with all the varieties of the modern extended family than you are, that's for sure.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:26 (nineteen years ago)

...

If you are unable to tell the difference between APHC, his Salon pieces, and his Writer's Almanac spots, I can't help you. All I can suggest is to try to find a sense of humor somewhere, anywhere. Read some S. J. Perelman or something.

By the way, the only reason I'm not wearing chartreuse trousers right now is because it's not quite spring yet. I've got some, and I'll be wearing them soon, I promise.

...

Everyone had a yard? Leftovers in the fridge? What? This man was born in 1942! That's just about 13 years after the Great Depression began, six years before Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces, and 22 years before the Civil Rights act of 1964.

"You could put me in a glass case at the history center and schoolchildren could press a button and ask me questions," writes Keillor. Oh can we? Please tell us Uncle Garrison! Maybe we can ask about the twelve years of his life lived before Brown v. Board of Education? Wasn't life in America so much better then? You know, with the whole separate drinking fountains, racial unrest, and institutionalized discrimination? Where did Garrison Keillor grow up? Disneyland?

...

OMG, Dan. Lighten up. A year from now, Garrison Keilor's post will be considered a classic. Don't tarnish your reputation for fairness, insight, humor and intelligence. Do the right thing; delete your post.

...

dan i'm a big fan and consistently read blog posts of yours when i can find them, i posted on the portland mercury blog in response to a post of your about uneven standards of sexism once.

i'm really disappointed you're so clueless on this one. keillor writes in a variety of personas, most of them satirical, and always refuses to dumb down his language enough to delude the subtlety of his point, if there even is one. a lot of his articles are simply musings.

do you really think garrison keillor is not aware of his own marriage history? the article in question is a perspective on the current state of the american family. for you to misconstrue this as homophobic is really depressing to me.

in the future satire won't exist if we respond so dumbly to our most intelligent writers.

i hope you read this post and reconsider. i'm 100% certain that keillor is not homophobic and this piece was not intended to be.

...

Garrison Keilor...where to begin?
- Who told this asshole he could sing? So painful.
- He gives arrogant and conceited people a bad name.
- Made the mistake of seeing the show live...incredibly boring.
- He seems to live in this so called "bygone era" that never even existed. It's like the revisionists who talk about what an innocent time the 50's were. Bullshit!

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (nineteen years ago)

warning pedant warning: attorneys are only really useful when state sanction comes into it. ie - you need someone that is familiar with the rules so that you can appeal to a 'higher' authority when the shit hits the fan. if there is no higher authority underwriting your marriage (other than G-D), then what's the point of an advocate, right?

but otherwise, yeah: the concept of state-sanctioned marriage is weird and antiquated if you ask me.

― gbx, Thursday, 15 March 2007 01:27 (nineteen years ago)

Do you understand the significance of a church refusing to have any weddings because the congregation, and pastor, agree that EVERY wedding should be equal?
The fact that it's Massachusetts is helpful to the parish - same sex marriage is legal. (Their decision is backed up by the law of the state, in a way.)
But they are defying the Anglican church, which makes me so happy!
It is such a brave thing to do.
NOBODY is getting married in that church.

― aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 04:58 (nineteen years ago)

By "you" I mean - every person reading this.
This is really significant!

― aimurchie, Thursday, 15 March 2007 05:15 (nineteen years ago)

that (never mind that it really isn't any more due to narcissistic breeders (like himself, apparently, though he doesn't say this)) this should continue to be the point of marriage whatever form it might take

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children. It was just what you did, particularly if you wanted to have sex. Children were a by-product of that, and you had them because that was what you did. There was no thought that you were doing it for them in any sense. It was just what you did.

I'm largely unfamiliar with Garrison Keillor because I mostly just think he's boring, but it's obvious to me from that piece that he hates gay marriage about as much as Christopher Guest hates folk music.

― accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 08:37 (nineteen years ago)

gabbneb, you haven't acknowledged that Keillor's using ridiculous stereotypes as a basis for his tepid shtick is just STUPID; and how is one supposed to be aware of the "persona" (according to one poster on the article) Keillor uses in this essay?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

I think what you're trying to ask gabbneb is whether or not he finds GK humorous.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

remember, gabb likes 'humor' not 'comedy'

― and what, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

Does this mean that Keillor is now "edgy"? I'm confused.

― J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:42 (nineteen years ago)

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children.

So true! The only reason the accomplished housewife of the early- and mid-century was able to have dinner on the table and the shirts ironed, house clean, vegetable patch weeded, etc, was that she sure as hell wasn't driving the kids to soccer, piano, ballet, karate, science challenge, or anything else after school -- her offspring were riding bikes in the street with all the other kids on the block. (As Caitlin Flanagan pointed out in a recent book, why else did the family buy that nice house right across from the park if the kids weren't going to use it??) Conversation at dinner probably took place mostly between the adults present, with children allowed to interject occasionally or answer if spoken to. Etc. Definitely NOT life centered around children, PER SE, but around the household in its altogether.

― Laurel, Thursday, 15 March 2007 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

gabbneb, you haven't acknowledged that Keillor's using ridiculous stereotypes as a basis for his tepid shtick is just STUPID

i'm not going to acknowledge that because i don't agree with it

how is one supposed to be aware of the "persona" (according to one poster on the article) Keillor uses in this essay?

by reading? through familiarity with his voice? (and why would you read Keillor if uninterested in him?) 'persona' may be going a bit far, but it's not entirely wrong either

Does this mean that Keillor is now "edgy"? I'm confused.

some of Keillor's personae have always been "edgy"

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, except for this. Marriage in the golden days of the 40s and 50s or whenever were the golden days were was not "about" children. It was just what you did, particularly if you wanted to have sex. Children were a by-product of that, and you had them because that was what you did. There was no thought that you were doing it for them in any sense. It was just what you did.

you're referring to having children, not raising them. and were you there at the time? in his minnesota household? again, if you know his voice, you recognize that this is both idealized fantasy and parody - it's not like he doesn't know these things - but he's presenting a normative view of what marriage is about that is common today to both many opponents of gay marriage and many proponents of gay parenting.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I see, his humour is only about his specific family and is not supposed to be any kind of reflection on any wider community. I didn't realise that. I'm surprised he's so popular then.

― accentmonkey, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

more from the Stranger's blog

Dan, I think you're fundamentally misreading Garrison's comments.

In the offending paragraph, he's saying that the country has come to a qualified acceptance of homosexuality, but only if gay people are willing to live within the confines of the stereotypes and roles that mainstream culture thrusts upon us. But that stereotyped role remains at odds with America's collective notions about what a "parent" looks like. (This is why he engages those stereotypes--as a gentle critique of Middle America's affinity for those same stereotypes--not in a mean-spirited mocking way. Middle America is cool with Will and Grace (remember that Republican women are that show's #1 audience). They're not comfortable with gay marriage and parenting yet because they don't really know what gay people's ACTUAL LIVES are like.

Keillor's not attacking you. How much of his work are you familiar with? Maybe you just don't understand his tone. I understand when attacks on gay families are coming so constantly that it's easy to be hyperdefensive about it, but Keillor's on our side. Maybe before wasting our activist energies on a protest campaign against someone who is an ally, you should ask him to clarify his remarks? Give his publicist a call.

...

Dan's judgement here is way off.

Keillor makes his living making wise-cracks that play off stereotypes: about stereotypical Democrats and Republicans, about stereotypical Norwegians and Lutherans, about stereotypical midwestern and coastal values and lifestyles. Now he's made a thoroughly in-character wise-crack about the confused modern family that plays off stereotypes of traditional families and gay men.

He hasn't come out against homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gay adoption, HIV/AIDS funding, or any other political sacred cow. He has just offended the hyper-vigilant PC language police, of whom Dan is unfortunately becomming increasing representative.

This isn't an issue for ACT UP, it's an issue for the Weekly's "Uptight Seattleite" column.

...

Keillor's overarching project is to comment on the world from this nostalgic midwestern perspective, and everything he does is built around a simultaneous genuine appreciation of and affectionate satire of that culture. His perspective gives voice to working-class sentiments, in a way that allows him to shepherd them in a progressive direction. Here he's acknowledging that, yes, middle america does feel a legitimate anxiety about the stability of american families and suggesting that their concerns about gay marriage are in part, a misdirected expression of this legitimate anxiety. But he also says with specific regard to gay families, "we'll get used to it."

I mean, the premise of this piece is "parents aren't supposed to care about their emotional well-being," which you really ought to find hilarious. He's pushing the "children must come first" argument to its logical endpoint, for comedic effect.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:28 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I see, his humour is only about his specific family and is not supposed to be any kind of reflection on any wider community. I didn't realise that. I'm surprised he's so popular then.

his humor is supposed to be about people like him, who grew up in the 40s and 50s in the upper midwest

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

Keillor isn't a good enough writer to delineate his "persona" or to make his purported ironies resonate; and, anyway, using a "persona" to express socio-political views when you're a mediocrity makes your cowardice more glaring.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:30 (nineteen years ago)

his humor is supposed to be about people like him, who grew up in the 40s and 50s in the upper midwest

gabbneb I had no idea you were so old!

― J, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:04 (nineteen years ago)

I really don't get into GK, despite my first college roommate playing GK nonstop for a year. But I totally get where he's coming from on this, which is probably enhanced a great deal by growing up in the upper midwest and being able to relate to GK's personifications and characters. Or maybe it's that + hearing his radio persona when I read that article. Besides, doesn't Savage have time for better targets, like politicians who can actually advance his agenda?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

gabbneb I had no idea you were so old!

i think GK is a better authority on the topic than you, me or accentmonkey

― gabbneb, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

Those defending the essay are stretching things a bit far in Keillor's defense. Though he's famous for his ultra-dry, self-mocking wit, he always manages, eventually, to tip his hand: we always know who he's making fun of. And while he's often viewed as a comedian, he also famous for his sincere, common-sense defense of traditional values, even as he chastizes those who get a bit overexcited in their zeal for the same.

But if this essay is a sly, self-satirizing joke, he's not visibly tipping his hand. Not at all. In fact, he seems be speaking in common sense mode -- the opening paragraphs set this up very clearly. This is a straightforward defense of "man & wife till death do us part" marriage and its role in child-rearing. The only irony comes in Keillor's wry, resigned acceptance of his own fuddy-duddiness. Throw in a few dated jabs at the selfishness of "me generation" parenting, and you've got the gist.

He may be (very gently) mocking stuffy, Midwestern conservatives, but he's also sentimentally, nostalgiacally celebrating their core values. That's what he does. And in this case, it's a bit distasteful.

― Pye Poudre, Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

GK is a radio personality who performs well within a narrow range. He's a lousy writer. I've had the same problem with most of his articles. He's used to writing for radio, specifically his show, and it shows, but like with all his crappy articles, I imagined this one read in his voice, in character, possibly as a part of one of his radio plays, and they make a little more sense. It's obvious to me what he's trying to do here, and I'm not in the least bit offended, but bad art means you're not going to get a response consistent with your intended message.

I had the same problem with his movie. The movie would have been better executed as a 10 min guy noir sketch.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 15 March 2007 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/garrison_keillors_apology

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 19:44 (nineteen years ago)

I think his explanation that the column was meant to be read as it would be by people in the small world of arts and entertainment doesn't solve the problems with it, as his audience is far wider than that and he KNOWS it. I'm not part of that "small world," i don't know him and his gay friends personally, and i don't know his entire body of work, so i honestly misunderstood - but should that level of knowledge about the author really be required out of a reader of a syndicated column? Tongue and cheek or not, it seems pretty irresponsible to me.

― Maria, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

five months pass...

Not something I expected at all:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to marriage for same-sex partners and revealed that his adult daughter is a lesbian.
Sanders on Wednesday signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He previously promised to veto it.
The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.
He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.

It's going to start coming down to this more and more, I figure. It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is -- Sanders is a perfect fit for San Diego as mayor (former police chief, Republican, etc.) and without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this. (Two to one Duncan Hunter is off banging his head against the wall right now.)

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

without knowing all the local dynamics I find it hard to believe any challenger in the next race from the GOP side can chip away at him on anything else *but* this.

Reading this on Sulllivan's site this morning, I had the same thought, then dismissed it. I mean, he's articulated his change of mind as clearly as possible. What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one - I certainly agree that gay couples should have all the same rights and legal priveleges and distinctions that straight couples have, but how can the state possibly legislate religion, it just seems completely stupid. Make civil unions have the same exact legal standing as trad marriages and voila - problem solved, at least legally speaking. But if Catholics don't wanna marry gays, I don't see how there's any way the law can tell them they have to.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

What GOP challenger would dare to say he's "anti-family" now?

It's a hell of a glove to throw down, for sure. Wouldn't be surprised if someone tries it, though.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 September 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

It was nice of the Catholics to decide last year that unbaptized babies' souls now go to heaven instead of limbo.

― dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

What happens to those in limbo already?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:19 (eighteen years ago)

luckily nothing, since it never really existed in the first place, but not soon enough to prevent hundreds of years of psychic sorrow for believing Catholics whose kids were stillborn, aborted, etc...

but I guess that's another thread...

― dally, Thursday, 20 September 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

so wheres the motivation for baptism now?

― sunny successor, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

My Mom is married to a Lady, but it looks like their union isn't legal anymore. They got married in Oregon. They've been together for nearly 25 years.

― Maria :D, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

That's really odd...I'm legally married, but the ceremony was totally secular and performed by an agnostic friend who filled out a form on the internet. There's no box on my tax forms for "civil unioned filing jointly".

I see what you're saying though, if churches don't want to marry people, they shouldn't have to. But if marriage is exclusively a religious institution, then I guess I'm not married, despite all evidence to the contrary.

― joygoat, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

you're not married according to any CHURCH, but you are married according to the law. That's the whole problem with this debate, the conflation of the two concepts together under a single term - its just not helpful.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

The Catholics wouldn't have to marry gays if gay marriage were legalized. They don't have to marry straight atheists or Jews or Lutherans now. Marriage is a weird religious-civil hybrid. (xpost - yeah pretty much)

― Maria, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

I'm all for adult couples marrying whoever they like but the thing I don't get about this debate is that marriage is a religious institution, not a civil one

You're joking, right? Or do you think atheists can't get married? Marriage is a religious and a civil union -- and it's the religious part which is optional. No one is saying Catholics have to marry anyone they don't want to.

xpost

― Casuistry, Thursday, 20 September 2007 18:55 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I mean death is a religious and a secular concept too, it's only when we hook a bunch of machines up to a medulla with lungs that we run into problems with that

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

Isn't marriage the death of hope? (spot the quote)

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not joking at all - there's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, for ex., and there's nothing in the legal rights granted to couples that requires using that term.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 20 September 2007 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 3048 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.