More Dht is better? theory

Read about and discuss general hair loss topics.

Moderator: moderators



Post Reply
cuebreeze
Prolific Poster
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:30 pm
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Norwood Level: Norwood III
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

More Dht is better? theory

Post by cuebreeze » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:58 pm

Ive been reading a few articles explaining how dht is needed for manly features such as facial hair and deep voice etc.

So my theory or question is that would more dht be better for the hair IF it wasnt getting stuck under the scalp. For example, if bentonite clay really draws out the oils/dht than increasing dht (bringing the scalp more of the dht benefits) would help hair growth??



Also i am one who started losing my hair at about 17 (pretty young hey)!...
Anyway the biggest thing i can think that i did different to most teenage kids is that in my young years (10 through to 17) i rarely showered (maybe once every second day), sometimes longer. I also ate a pretty unhealthy diet over those years).


So im thinking if mpb has already struck than increasing dht would be bad. BUT if it was increased in someone WITH mpb OR if we could stop the dht building up under the scalp than maybe DHT would be in our favour

Pete2
Prolific Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:40 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Pete2 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:12 pm

cuebreeze wrote:Ive been reading a few articles explaining how dht is needed for manly features such as facial hair and deep voice etc.

So my theory or question is that would more dht be better for the hair IF it wasnt getting stuck under the scalp. For example, if bentonite clay really draws out the oils/dht than increasing dht (bringing the scalp more of the dht benefits) would help hair growth??



Also i am one who started losing my hair at about 17 (pretty young hey)!...
Anyway the biggest thing i can think that i did different to most teenage kids is that in my young years (10 through to 17) i rarely showered (maybe once every second day), sometimes longer. I also ate a pretty unhealthy diet over those years).


So im thinking if mpb has already struck than increasing dht would be bad. BUT if it was increased in someone WITH mpb OR if we could stop the dht building up under the scalp than maybe DHT would be in our favour



The more Testosterone the better - you will notice that we have great hair in teens when Testosterone is high and at the same time as hairloss kicks in testosterone levels seem to fall..





Regards
Pete

User avatar
Dobika
Regular Poster
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:20 pm
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No
Treatment Regimen: Lasers, toco8, scalp exercises, diet, exercise, nioxin

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Dobika » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:08 am

I don't think it's the amount of Testosterone, it's how much is converted to DHT. We are the lucky one's who have the enzyme that converts it to DHT.

Pete2
Prolific Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:40 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Pete2 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:53 am

Dobika wrote:I don't think it's the amount of Testosterone, it's how much is converted to DHT. We are the lucky one's who have the enzyme that converts it to DHT.

More the Testosterone to Estradiol ratio


Regards
Pete

perga
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:59 pm
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by perga » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:46 am

No. More DHT = Bad

I don't think there is any doubt remaining that pattern baldness is genetic, and we are simply genetically inferior to people that keep their hair. In THOSE people, perhaps the more DHT the better, but in us... no.

What I don't understand about it is, why when you eliminate DHT is there not a full recovery? Whatever the reason may be however, it clearly indicates pattern baldness is a degenerative disorder, which explains why we still have great hair as youths and it progresses from there...

1.....
Prolific Poster
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:45 pm
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No
Treatment Regimen: 300 diode Laser Messiah II
IH's top 3 plus resv
4 Shampoo rotation
Mag Oil 3x a week
Scalpure
Adding Super Zix 2, PP topical, and Pauling Protocol

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by 1..... » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:47 pm

I'm confused on why people say that clay pulls DHT out of the root. Are there any studies on this? And I thought that dht attaches to the receptor site and using something like zix will block this from happening.

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:18 am

1..... wrote:I'm confused on why people say that clay pulls DHT out of the root. Are there any studies on this?
There are no such studies. The belief seems to stem from the unverified claims of Scalpure. I'm surprised people aren't being more clever or educated about this. It is the ABC of hair loss.
1..... wrote:And I thought that dht attaches to the receptor site
Bingo!
perga wrote:No. More DHT = Bad
I don't think there is any doubt remaining that pattern baldness is genetic, and we are simply genetically inferior to people that keep their hair.
Exactly. I cannot for the life of me understand why this is being discussed 2009!
perga wrote:In THOSE people, perhaps the more DHT the better, but in us... no.
Precisely. DHT leads to slightly coarser hair for follcles that are not susceptible to androgens. For us MPB sufferers, DHT leads to baldness.
perga wrote:What I don't understand about it is, why when you eliminate DHT is there not a full recovery? Whatever the reason may be however, it clearly indicates pattern baldness is a degenerative disorder, which explains why we still have great hair as youths and it progresses from there...
You basically answered it yourself. It is a degenerative disorder. The DHT molecules attach to the androgen receptors in the cytosol inside of a cell. This leads to transformation of the AR and the release of heat shock proteins. The receptor and androgen complex is transported into the nucleus where it binds to DNA at certain places. This leads to the expression of the adjacent genes though transcription. I don't know what happens to the AR once it is bound to DNA, but I guess it just sits there, which means that the cell has been "tainted" at that point. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chip in and tell us what happens to the AR/androgen complex after it is bound to DNA and the gene has been transcribed.
Last edited by p__ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pete2
Prolific Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:40 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Pete2 » Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:43 am

1..... wrote:I'm confused on why people say that clay pulls DHT out of the root. Are there any studies on this? And I thought that dht attaches to the receptor site and using something like zix will block this from happening.

The clay may have be having a beneficial effect absorbing excess sebum.




Regards
Pete

Pete2
Prolific Poster
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:40 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Pete2 » Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:45 am

perga wrote:
What I don't understand about it is, why when you eliminate DHT is there not a full recovery? Whatever the reason may be however, it clearly indicates pattern baldness is a degenerative disorder, which explains why we still have great hair as youths and it progresses from there...

There are other factors at play eg immune system hence your hair doesnt make the full recovery you mention.



Regards
Pete

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:18 am

Pete2 wrote:The clay may have be having a beneficial effect absorbing excess sebum.
In addition to the the fact that there is no real proof that the clay in question removes sebum in the first place, studies show that substances which do reduce sebum, like GLA, did nothing for hair loss, unfortunately. I am currently not aware of any studies showing a causal link between sebum and hair loss. If anyone knows of any studies which show a different result, please let me know!

User avatar
hapyman
Prolific Poster
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:02 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by hapyman » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:18 pm

Hey cue, I brought up the same thing to IH and basically facial hair responds differently to DHT.

Things that are used to regrow hair for MPB sufferers can actually be used to help remove or lessen facial hair growth.

For example...

Turmeric paste is used in India to help slow facial hair growth. However, Curcumin has shown to help scalp hair grow. There was a guy over at regrowth who had it in a custom elsom topical and he loved it.

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:56 am

Apart from slowing the progression of my hair loss, there are other benefits from blocking DHT. I've noticed my skin is less greasy, my facial hair doesn't grow as fast (I can get away with shaving every other day) and my body hair is finer.

I also agree in that I do not think there is any link between sebum and hair loss. Greasy hair may 'look' thinner, but I don't think that it actually increases the rate of hair loss. Whatever DHT does, it does via an intracellular process as described, and not through 'choking' the follicles due to sebum.

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:01 am

perga wrote:What I don't understand about it is, why when you eliminate DHT is there not a full recovery? Whatever the reason may be however, it clearly indicates pattern baldness is a degenerative disorder, which explains why we still have great hair as youths and it progresses from there...
You basically answered it yourself. It is a degenerative disorder. The DHT molecules attach to the androgen receptors in the cytosol inside of a cell. This leads to transformation of the AR and the release of heat shock proteins. The receptor and androgen complex is transported into the nucleus where it binds to DNA at certain places. This leads to the expression of the adjacent genes though transcription. I don't know what happens to the AR once it is bound to DNA, but I guess it just sits there, which means that the cell has been "tainted" at that point. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chip in and tell us what happens to the AR/androgen complex after it is bound to DNA and the gene has been transcribed.[/quote]

If it's like any other gene transcription pathway in the body, then it usually transcribes the gene, then dissociates to either rebind and transcribe again, or is neutralized by intracellular proteins. The problem is the number of genes that are activated by DHT. There is no way you would be able to eliminate all of their actions, there are just too many. People have tried to eliminate some of them using neutralising antibodies, with some success, in vitro. That is why blocking DHT is your best bet. The problem with Fin is it does not stop 100% of the DHT production (at best 80%) which is why some people, myself included continue to progress despite taking fin. In addition, you also have circulating DHT from liver etc, which is produced by type 2 5AR.

I think the best bet at a potential cure for this thing would be a combination of Dut + neutralising antibodies to the top 10 or so gene products, blocking gene transcription and mopping up any gene products that may get through. You could get a neutralising antibody for DHT, something like an androgen receptor attached to an anitbody, bit like the TNF-alpha blockers that are out there. Prob with that is it will also neutralise T and DHEA, with unknown effects I guess.

zixcreator
Seasoned Poster
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood V
Have you had a hair transplant?: No
Treatment Regimen: Zix

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by zixcreator » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:09 am

Yes DHT is definitely bad for hair....but it is good for other things happening in the body. That's why many of us experience side effects from something like propecia or dut.

As far as dut or fin.....if I remember correctly when they were titrating the dose of propecia they found that 1 mg was optimal. True a higher dosage would cut more DHT but this didn't result in anymore hair regrowth. That is why I never understood the love affair with Dut. To me this drug simply increases the risk of nasty side effects and yet doesn't grow anymore hair than fin.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:19 pm

I'm not sure that a higher dose of fin would block more DHT production. It all depends on the affinity of fin for the 5AR, i.e how tightly it binds. It is in an equilibrium with T. Increasing the dose doesn't necessarily reduce DHT production because as far as I know fin is a reversible inhibitor of the 5AR, with a dose response curve peaking at around 0.2mg. I think the BIG thing going for fin is the human model, i.e. those people who lack 5AR type 1. These people do not go bald, ever. Neither do they have upset T levels or any other long term problems from lacking 5AR type 1, well so I've read. It's like we already have a group of people who have been on fin all their lives, with no long term adverse effects. Ok, it's not quite the same, as fin may affect other enzymes in the body also, but it's very close if you consider fin to be 5AR type 1 specific.

Dut on the other hand is a different ball game. As far as I know there aren't a group of people who lack type 2 so the long term adverse effects of blocking this type are unknown. And as type 2 is in the liver, I'm guessing that it must play some role. In addition, I think it has been shown to be superior to fin at 2.5mg.

I actually think Fin and lasers complement each other nicely. Fin will stop the nasty genes being transcribed as mcuh as possible, and lasers will reduce the effects of genes that managed to get transcribed due to fin not blocking 100% 5AR. Considering some of the genes upregulated by DHT are proinflammatory mediators, I think lasers will do a nice job of limiting their effects.

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:08 pm

LaserKid wrote:If it's like any other gene transcription pathway in the body, then it usually transcribes the gene, then dissociates to either rebind and transcribe again, or is neutralized by intracellular proteins. The problem is the number of genes that are activated by DHT. There is no way you would be able to eliminate all of their actions, there are just too many. People have tried to eliminate some of them using neutralising antibodies, with some success, in vitro. That is why blocking DHT is your best bet. The problem with Fin is it does not stop 100% of the DHT production (at best 80%) which is why some people, myself included continue to progress despite taking fin.
Good post, LaserKid! Thanks for the info. To be clear, I was referring to the receptor/androgen complex which binds to the hormone response element, thereby acting as a transcription factor (correct me if I'm wrong). I was wondering what happens to it in the long run. I was not referring to the RNA polymerase, which takes part in the actual transcription and then dissociates itself. What were you referring to when you wrote "it" in "...it usually transcribes the gene, then dissociates..."? The RNAP or the transcription factor?
zixcreator wrote:As far as dut or fin.....if I remember correctly when they were titrating the dose of propecia they found that 1 mg was optimal. True a higher dosage would cut more DHT but this didn't result in anymore hair regrowth. That is why I never understood the love affair with Dut. To me this drug simply increases the risk of nasty side effects and yet doesn't grow anymore hair than fin.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Yes, it's a good question and it's a a trade-off, I suppose. In addition to type II DHT, dutasteride inhibits type I DHT, which has not been linked to androgenic alopecia. Inhibiting type I DHT will only risk giving you more side effects without any benefits for hair. However, dutasteride also inhibits type II DHT significantly better than finasteride which accounts for its superior ability to prevent hair loss in studies. Given the rather flat, seemingly asymptotic dose response of finasteride, achieving the same level of efficiency with finasteride would hardly be practically possible. So, I think saying that dutasteride doesn't grow more hair than finasteride is inaccurate or at least not the complete truth. One of the main points of 5a-reductase inhibitors is to prevent further hair loss. While they can offer some initial recovery, presumably for follicles that were just about to "go under", which I suppose can be percieved as growth, they don't really grow hair.

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:53 am

From what I can remember from my biochem days, the AR/DHT complex can dissociate from the HRE, and then bind to a specific intra-nuclear protein which prevents re-binding (I'll call a neutralisation protein, not sure of the real name). The binding of the neutralisation protein targets the AR/DHT complex for break-down, which is normally done by intracellular proteases such as the ubiquitin-protease system. Obviously the whole system is in equilibrium, but in most people favours AR/DHT destruction (the forward reaction), because it is always being destroyed by proteases. This is a kind of check point in the cell, preventing the whole process getting out of hand.

I'm guessing the problem in mpb is that the cell is bombarded with DHT and fails to keep up with it's recycling duties. This may help explain lasers, which have no effect on extracellular DHT, but may exert their effects through intracelullar processes such as providing energy stores for proteases and increasing intracellular protein synthesis.

If anyone thinks I've got something wrong, please correct as it's been a long time since I've thought about this stuff, my last uni exam to be exact!

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:20 am

Again, good post, LaserKid! Thanks for the clarification!

Hairy Dawgs
Occasional Poster
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:48 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Hairy Dawgs » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:10 am

Keep in mind doctors just realized that your body uses your appendix for emergencies of extreme inflammation. I don't think it has much to do with hair loss, although it would be interesting to do a study of hairloss, related to inflammation and those, who have or do not have an appendix, since there's quite a bit of talk about inflammation on the scalp and hairloss.

The point to my statement is that, we're all in agreement of what DHT is and does, as far as grabing onto receptors and causing hairloss but only scratching the surface about what DHT really does. I know when I was taking fin, that I was starting to feel and act like a woman. Hilarious now that I look back but not so funny, at the time. I haven't taken it for a while and now and feel much more like my former self. It could've been the surplus of estrogen. I even tried taking testosterone to counter the effects but I just decided fin wasn't worth it. I'm not going to bash the fin, though. Works great for a lot of people.

I've heard the doctors don't really know how fin really works. They know it blocks the receptor site but can't explain exactly how. There has to be a better way to block the receptor with something that doesn't cause your body to produce more/less of something. Hmmm, i'll get back to you.

1.....
Prolific Poster
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:45 pm
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No
Treatment Regimen: 300 diode Laser Messiah II
IH's top 3 plus resv
4 Shampoo rotation
Mag Oil 3x a week
Scalpure
Adding Super Zix 2, PP topical, and Pauling Protocol

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by 1..... » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:39 am

btw, cue have you had a shed since you quit fin?

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:07 am

Hairy Dawgs wrote:I've heard the doctors don't really know how fin really works. They know it blocks the receptor site but can't explain exactly how.
Doctors, along with a whole bunch of researchers, hair loss sufferers and people with access to wikipedia :lol:, know pretty much exactly how finasteride works. It does not block receptor sites. It inhibits conversion of testosterone to DHT through the type II 5a-reductase enzyme.

The exact reason Minoxidil works, on the other hand, is not known, although there are several reasonable theories.

Hairy Dawgs
Occasional Poster
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:48 am
Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by Hairy Dawgs » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:04 pm

I guess my point was more to point out that no one really knows exactly what DHT is or what it's used for. Finasteride blocks the receptor, we all know that. But what happens in it's place and what is DHT used for in the first place. It's in the brain and used for proper muscle growth. I should've been more specific. My apologies.

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:26 pm

No, Hairy Dawg, as mentioned in my previous post, finasteride is not a receptor blocker. It is an 5a-reductase inhibitor which is something else. And we know exactly what DHT is. It is an androgen. Its chemical formula and structure is well known.

It is true that we do not know every place where it can bind to receptors, and that we don't know what effect it has when it binds to some receptors, but we do know many places where it is used as a ligand for androgen receptors and we know the details and effects of many of those receptors. All in all, we know pretty much about it.

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:59 am

Does anyone know the exact way that Fin blocks 5AR? Is it reversible/non-reversible competitive/non-competitive inhibitor?

Also, why do people believe that taking propecia and saw palmetto is not the thing to do? I've heard saw palmetto binds to DHT, preventing it binding to the AR. Surely taking the two together would be synergistic, propecia reducing DHT formation and SP inhibiting the small amount which does get produced?

p__
Prolific Poster
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:36 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II A
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by p__ » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:24 am

According to Bryan over at HLT (who is usually right):
It binds the active site, but it's not a competitive inhibitor. Finasteride and dutasteride are both considered to be irreversible inhibitors of the 5a-reductase type 2 enzyme. However, dutasteride is indeed a competitive inhibitor of the type 1 version.
Then again, according to Merck's Prescribing Information (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... cia_pi.pdf):
Finasteride is a competitive and specific inhibitor of Type II 5α-reductase...
According to Bryan, Merck uses the term "competitive" laxly.

Regarding saw palmetto, I don't know too much about it actually, but I never heard it was supposed to bind to DHT. I only heard that it possibly inhibits 5a-reductase but have yet to see any in-vivo evidence to support that notion.
Last edited by p__ on Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LaserKid
Regular Poster
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:34 am
Hair Loss Type: Androgenetic Alopecia (Male Pattern Baldness)
Norwood Level: Norwood II
Have you had a hair transplant?: No

Re: More Dht is better? theory

Post by LaserKid » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:36 pm

Cheers, thanks for the info. I can't remember where I read that stuff about SP, I prob got it wrong tho.

Post Reply


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests