quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
don't flatter yourself


I do apologize for that display of cockiness - it was too cute and I couldn't help myself. But it was rude. So I'm sorry.

But I took great exception to the suggestion that I'm not open-minded. Afterall, I usually find it to be the case that I'm far more knowledgeable of Christianity than Christians are of my religion.

* What most Christians seem to mean when they accuse others of not being open minded is that we won't cave in and confess that Jesus is the WAY and there is no other *

But isn't that a strange way of being "open-minded"?? By concluding that everyone except one group is wrong???

Isn't that like the KKK saying that we're bigoted because we don't want them marching in our neighborhood?? Frown
Last edited {1}
I can't speak for most Christians, heck I probably can't speak for any Christians. The Bible isn't my sole source of spiritual information. I've read numerous pieces, and books that have strong arguments against the Bible, and the History of Christianity, even when I read the Metu, I can sense that Ra Un Nefer Amen isn't overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the sage-hood/god-hood of Christ. I think I'm unique because I feel like the Bible was white-washed, however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


quote:
What most Christians seem to mean when they accuse others of not being open minded is that we won't cave in and confess that Jesus is the WAY and there is no other *


Again, I can't speak for 'most' Christians, what I notice about the double-standard of anti-fundamentalists is that they go into the religous debate with a strong bias, and accept any argument in their favor, credible or not, logical or illogical, for instance:

quote:
He places the purging of the temple at the BEGINNING of Jesus' ministry whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke place it at the end (even implying it was the reason for his crucifixion: "When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him").
in John here is no connection at all drawn between Jesus's driving money changers out of the Temple and his death. Why? Probably because John wanted to emphasize different tings about who he THOUGHT Jesus was. John's INTERPRETATION was that it was Jesus' mission to purify religious practice and so he puts it at the beginning of the story. And obviously you can't crucify him at the start of the story and so John erases the connection.


I don't know what book of John this guy was reading but...
This is frustrating to me because when I read John, I can sense his kindheartedness and his passion for getting across Jesus' message, moreso than a chronological history of his sermons. Most people don't THINK when they read the Bible soo...

John 2
...And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables(there goes that theory): And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (retrospective validation)... DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP...

(this next part is significant, because clearly the author of the conspiracy ignored this part)

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.(more retrospective validation) (we're still in Ch2!!!)


John displays his purpose loud and clear, to show you how Jesus' words don't fall in vain, and how the life of His words was made real to him. I connect with John, because I can feel how he misses Christ even while writing this letter, I relate this to words that play over and over in my mind that a late loved one may have said to me, and the feeling I get when I can see/taste/touch/and feel, those words walk and breathe. I imagine John getting chills down his spine while writing his letter, because Christ' mission and His realness couldn't be any clearer in his life.
Does John's use of foreshadow invalidate his book?
quote:
HeruStar said: however I'm able to find spiritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings,


--for sure, an inspirational book it is but after that this book of books grows legs and walks.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Again, I can't speak for 'most' Christians, what I notice about the double-standard of anti-fundamentalists is that they go into the religous debate with a strong bias, and accept any argument in their favor, credible or not, logical or illogical


Oh I was PERFECTLY logical. Keep reading.

quote:

I don't know what book of John this guy was reading but...This is frustrating to me because when I read John, I can sense his kindheartedness and his passion for getting across Jesus' message, moreso than a chronological history of his sermons. Most people don't THINK when they read the Bible soo...


The "this guy" in question was me. And the book I was reading was The Gospel According to John. And I think plenty. Even when I read the Bible. Thank you very much.

You seem to have completely missed the point I was trying to make. Maybe I wasn't clear enough:

The other 3 Gospels assert a CAUSAL CONNECTION between the events in the temple and the crucifixion. By changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.

quote:

he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables

(there goes that theory): And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (retrospective validation)... DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP...

(this next part is significant, because clearly the author of the conspiracy ignored this part)


First thing is I never claimed a 'conspiracy'. Second thing is, and I repeat, although you're right that John does make some sort of a connection between this event and the crucifixion, by changing the chronology, John, in effect, denies that the connection was a CAUSAL CONNECTION.

That is: Event A causing Event B.

The other three Gospels portray the event in the temple as directly bringing about the crucifixion. I.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke assert that there was a CAUSAL connection between these events ("When the chief priests and scribes heard of it, they kept looking for a way to kill him")

While John does make a connection it is NOT a causal one. The alteration in the chronology in effect is a denial of a causal connection.

That is a factual conflict between the Gospels.

Case closed. That is, unless you have a real argument against the actual point I'm making.

quote:

Does John's use of foreshadow invalidate his book?


* I never said that John's use of foreshadow "invalidated" the book. What I said was that John's alteration of the chronology introduces a factual conflict with the other 3 Gospels. I continue to stand by this claim because NOTHING you've said here addresses my real point. *
quote:

however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


Heru, if you really mean this then maybe my last post is more nitpicky than it needed to be. Because I too can read the Bible (including John) and get a lot of spiritual significance out of it.

I chose to pick on John because, for all of its virtues, that particular book has been historically one of the main sources for Christian exclusivism and intolerance.

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me John 14:6

It's the ONLY Gospel which claims Jesus was Divine ("Son of God" is used in the other 3 Gospels but that title was not a claim to Divinity as it was used by several Jewish sects of the time)

If you want a really spiritual book, check out the Gospel of Thomas. There are a lot of similarities between this Gnostic text and John. But Thomas takes a less exclusive point of view. It's the view of some prominent Biblical scholars that John was trying to discredit Thomas (which was written FIRST, by the way).
I like Thomas too...

Causal Theory

And Why I like John...

Cause: Jesus healed on the Sabbath

Effect: Jews saught to kill Him.

I wouldn't put so much weight on the incident at the temple, because they tried to capture/kill Jesus several times before and after that event, unless you're implying that this is the straw that broke the camels back, but even that's speculation.

Honestly I don't see a conflict between the Gospels

I see three JEWS trying to spoonfeed the scribes/pharisees, and other Jews a New Doctrine. John doesn't care to hold the Jews hands nor to be a Christ apologists (one of the reasons He is my favorite). The conflict is not amongst the disciples.


Here is the difference between the three.

Matthew says they plotted to kill Jesus after He heeled a sick man(Matthew 12) chronologically before the temple incident

Mark concurs(Mark 3)

So does Luke(Luke 6)

So does John(John 5)

(You probably missed these)

oh yeah, and if you read the chapters you'll see that there are no "implications", just straight "chronologically causal" facts.



However John, taking a stance, was the only one not to omit this important bit:

16And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

17But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God



Matthew held it down too, but He chose the more diplomatic route

6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.



Now I don't see any contradictions at all
I see omissions, but if each of them attempted to include everything Christ said and did...
whew...
u get the picture
I see four people sharing one story to dissimilar audiences
I still stand firm in believing that there are no laws against literary appeal and foreshadow

also I hold that John was writing to a much different audience, one of the first rules of writing is to 'KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE'


as far as Chronology goes, what "motive" do you have for the different things each Disciple chose to point out about the Birth and adolescence of Christ....

this ought to be interesting.
Last edited {1}
OK. I'll cry uncle (but only on this one issue: i.e., John's treatment of the temple incident and whether it truly conflicts with the other 3 Gospels).

That was a worthy comeback bow

But I stand by the comment that initiated this whole discussion. It makes no sense to me to say that the Bible is inconclusive but Jesus and his message are beyond dispute. Smile
quote:
"A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways".


Mr. Fagunwa, brotha that I have the utmost respect for...

I don't think James was referring to people like me.

I admit to not being 'like-minded', but I am in know way, shape, form, or fashion, 'double-minded'.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Call it like you see is Oshun, but Ima stand mine regardless...


Standing by a lack of understanding is egotistical Heru, it will only prevent you from learning about anything that may contradict your pre-existing beleifs, which isn't good, considering that most of our pre-existing beliefs were spooon fed to us by our oppressor in our youth.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:

however I'm able to find spirritual relevance and significance in much of its teachings, I sift through the racist and political issues, and focus on the message.


Heru, if you really mean this then maybe my last post is more nitpicky than it needed to be. Because I too can read the Bible (including John) and get a lot of spiritual significance out of it.

I chose to pick on John because, for all of its virtues, that particular book has been historically one of the main sources for Christian exclusivism and intolerance.

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me John 14:6

It's the ONLY Gospel which claims Jesus was Divine ("Son of God" is used in the other 3 Gospels but that title was not a claim to Divinity as it was used by several Jewish sects of the time)

If you want a really spiritual book, check out the Gospel of Thomas. There are a lot of similarities between this Gnostic text and John. But Thomas takes a less exclusive point of view. It's the view of some prominent Biblical scholars that John was trying to discredit Thomas (which was written FIRST, by the way).


Actually, John 14:6 is not even a good verse to use to justify exclusivism and intolerance.

In the Aramaic text, the word used for "I" (the first word in the sentence), is "ena-ena". "Ena-ena" literally means "I-I" in Aramaic. The term "ena" is an impersonal, third-person "I" that is used for when one wants to describe an impersonal object alluding to personalism.

In Aramaic, Jesus' words are literally, "I-I am the Path, the Truth, and the Existence: no person comes to the Father-Mother/Parent, but by My." More finely translated, this means: "Absoluteness is the Path, the Truth, and the Existence: no person comes to It but my ways."

Now this is ALOT more universal than the corrupted English/Latin translation (which was purposely mistranslated by Augustine and the Roman goverment to promote "Son of God" Emperor worship for Jesus to promote authoritarianism and exclusivism mentality).
quote:
December 15, 2005 02:43PM--Melesi said: First, the second website that fine points us to doesn't always know what it's talking about


--and you Melesi are a written authority and are always right Roll Eyes ek

quote:
Posted December 20, 2005 06:11PM Oshun Auset said--Isn't the oldest use of a word the origin? Especially considering the "Hebrews" didn't have a religion(by their own Sun Book/Helio Biblio) until they were in Egypt? hhmmmm...

It is KeMeTic... Amen... 'The hidden one'.(Sound familiar?)


--makes sense to me. Hebrew is not the oldest use of anything and represents a copy of everything before it evolved into pseudo-reality.

--I feel more comfortable referencing for an ancient source [i.e. Egyptian] or as you say KeMeTic.

--IMHO Egypt is a tender subject for most people because it has been shrouded in lies and false attacks [i.e the catholic church did a wonderful job concealing the truth in order to tout its own copied/false accolades]. In reality, everything we practice today came from this era [i.e from the bible thru modern civilization].
Last edited {1}
How many would still say amen at the end of prayers if they knew the word is of/from the "african" God "Aten" "Aton".
Translation: Don't "you people" know that nothing spiritual originated in africa unless christ dropped it off there?
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
"A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways".


Mr. Fagunwa, brotha that I have the utmost respect for...

I don't think James was referring to people like me.

I admit to not being 'like-minded', but I am in know way, shape, form, or fashion, 'double-minded'.




The stone deaf do not listen, for there are no sounds for them to hear.
quote:
Originally posted by Fagunwa:
Translation: Don't "you people" know that nothing spiritual originated in africa unless christ dropped it off there?


yeah
I may come off sounding cocky or condescending here, but I'm going to say it anyway. If you read, the Bible and how much of "Jewish" history takes place in Eastern Africa, how much influence Eastern African culture has in "Jewish" culture it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the word Amen is in fact Aharmaic (sp?)and is the name is that of a great Pharoah. Even a child can surmise this is presented with the facts.
I wonder what people would do if they knew that everytime they say "Amen" they were giving praise to a black man who was the embodiment of God?? Those racist white neo-con Christians folks would have a fit! lol I'm going to go post some information on this on another site. I want to see their reactions...
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
Do your homework, Melesi!

Hebrew is an off spring of the Akan language...

He has done his homework. It is the use of etymology in this way which shows a lack of understanding of linguistic, semiotic, and hermeneutical theory as it relates to language and meaning.

Fine,
Do you ever read anything that challenges your assumptions/conceptions about reality or do you only look for material that bolsters your worldview? Serious scholars do the former. Real learning is an agonistic process.
May I ask?

Has not the system of agnostic learning been set up by a European bias?

Is not it in our (non-European) interest to seek out alternative ways of looking at things that have been overlooked out of bias or hatred?

Is it not true that many of the historical and "official" documents most scholars use to base their work presently based off the "recognized" scholarship of those in the past with a consistent bias?

If I am wrong forgive me..... I do earnestly seek truth......

However, it is a little troubling to me that bias is often used against anyone that questions (even with hubris) the status quo.... and the status quo happens to maintain a history that is biased..... against us.....

I see nothing wrong with investigating..... sincerely..... and questioning..... and re-evaluating..... but we all bring biases to whatever we do..... that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective research.......

it simply means that as far as I can tell, historically many new theories were challenged as crackpot, having ulterior motives, or plain unscientific (or un-whatever the standard measuring bearer was at the time)--especially in European history........

I guess...... I find it interesting that a word like Amen that has been translated in different languages....... to be spoken today as ....... "Amen"........ is used with frequency in many spiritual fields.... with some importance.....

I think it warrants investigation........

The motive for investigation may be biased.....

however, the method of scholarship does not have to be..... nor does it have to be shut down because of another bias.....

the bias of keeping the status quo....

Please advise....



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determining if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determing if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
I know nothing of etymology.... what is the method? And why if the same word pops up in major religions around the world as well as translated from ancient texts as such is this not cause for serious investigation?


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
1. Meaning is as the word is used. Nobody uses the word like that, therefore that's not what the word means.

2. Moreover, the etymology may not be right. It could be from a similar but different Hebrew word, amman.

3. Be careful of similar-counding felicities. They are usually wrong.

4. Be careful of your motives.



I agree with Melesi here (will wonders ever cease?)

But it frequently happens in linguistic research that one encounters similar sounding words. Just because two words sound or look similar it doesn't mean that they are related in any way. Similarity can be coincidental. So there are methods that are more or less reliable for determing if they are truly related. In the absence of evidence all else is speculation.
I know nothing of etymology.... what is the method? And why if the same word pops up in major religions around the world as well as translated from ancient texts as such is this not cause for serious investigation?


Peace,
Virtue


Let's take English as a case study. English has borrowed extensively from other languages:

theology, logic, skeptic (are all from Greek)

paternity, ad hoc, ad hominem (come from Latin)

kindergarten (from German)

Yenta (from Russian)

smorgasbord (Swedish)

The tendency to borrow from Greek and Latin is most intense in the areas of scholarship and higher learning.

Whereas things like "smorgasbord" seem to have been retained almost randomly (and reflect our immigrant history).

But in all cases conscious borrowing shows similarity (or at least analogy) of usage between the source language and the corresponding English term. In the case of 'smorgasbord', for example, the English term denotes something like a meal in which there is a large variety of dishes to choose from (like a buffet). But the Swedish source (if I remember correctly) denotes the buffet table itself.

There has also been a very heavy French influence in English since the Norman invasion. But we still say that English is a Germanic language. So on what basis do we make that determination? Look at basic items of vocabulary (words that even children know):

English:German

mother:mutter

father:vater

daughter:tochter

son:sohn

maid:madchen

wife:weib

house:haus

word:wort

say:sag

drink:trinken

good:gut

thank:danke

morning:morgen

red:rot

water:wasser

bread:brot

hound:hund

brother:bruder

sister:schwester

stone:stein

dream:traum

sleep:schlaffen

Point? You see an extensive system of similarity between terms which have more or less the same meaning - and English and German are separated by a few thousand years. There are in addition fairly predictable rules governing the way pronunciations have diverged over time.

Sister Fine, I love you (and usually admire your intentions) ... I'm no expert but if Hebrew were an offspring of Akan it would not be such a well kept secret.

I'll be back to finish.....
Last edited {1}
OK etymologists, what is the meaning of Amen-Ra as it relates to the language spoken by the Egyptians and their former "Jewish" slaves?? How was it used in context at that time so that at least I can get an understanding of the difference between "Amen" and "ammam".
Again I'd like to raise the issue of the "Jewish" people being enslaved in Egypt for many generations and adopting their habits and language, which is evident even today.
Please post a link if you all can find one.
You might want to look at

Language Families

In particular, Akan is considered to be in the Niger-Congo family of languages and Hebrew is in the Afro-Asiatic family...

I'll add that it does seem to be generally accepted (but debated) that Semitic (from which we get Arabic and Hebrew) emerged from Africa some time in the 4th millenium bc. But from Ethiopia/Eritrea and not from Egypt. So it is true that Amharic, Hebrew, and Arabic are at least descended from the same mother tongue.
Last edited {1}
Here's an interesting link on Amen-Ra including something about the etymology (or history) of the name. This god was the "hidden one".

Here's a link on the Biblical Amen. Here a second one: Amen: that more or less agrees with the first. The word means "it is settled", "truly", or "verily".

These seem to be two different words which just so happen to be spelled the same (in English).
Last edited {1}
HonestBrother you are a wise man...and I will f/u on the info you have provided...

I love to read, research, and marvel at the truth as it unfolds...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Yemaya--OK etymologists, what is the meaning of Amen-Ra as it relates to the language spoken by the Egyptians and their former "Jewish" slaves?? How was it used in context at that time so that at least I can get an understanding of the difference between "Amen" and "ammam".
Again I'd like to raise the issue of the "Jewish" people being enslaved in Egypt for many generations and adopting their habits and language, which is evident even today.
Please post a link if you all can find one.


The "Afrim" people who became the "Ivrim" people who became the "Jewish/Hebrews" when they migrated to Europe were never really under any type of "harsh" slavery via the Egyptians. They were "all" black tribes that lived and flourished amongst one another.

In order to tweek the story that they claimed they wrote but did not--the European Jewish/Hebrew people left Egypt willingly and came back willingly...

"The Africans Who Wrote the Bible" by Dr. Darkwah
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
You do not intimidate me, Kresge...

You and Melesi make quite a pair of ostriches...!

I am not attempting to intimidate anyone. It was clear to me, however, that you had limited knowledge of semiotic, linguistic, and hermeneutical theory. If you are really interested in how language works in relation to meaning, I can recommend an excellent reading list for you. It would include folks like Saussure, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and Hirsch. Their theories differ, but as I said before, part of being intellectually honest means taking into consideration a diversity of serious scholarship.Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
May I ask?

Has not the system of agnostic learning been set up by a European bias?

Is not it in our (non-European) interest to seek out alternative ways of looking at things that have been overlooked out of bias or hatred?

Is it not true that many of the historical and "official" documents most scholars use to base their work presently based off the "recognized" scholarship of those in the past with a consistent bias?

If I am wrong forgive me..... I do earnestly seek truth......

However, it is a little troubling to me that bias is often used against anyone that questions (even with hubris) the status quo.... and the status quo happens to maintain a history that is biased..... against us.....

I see nothing wrong with investigating..... sincerely..... and questioning..... and re-evaluating..... but we all bring biases to whatever we do..... that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective research.......

it simply means that as far as I can tell, historically many new theories were challenged as crackpot, having ulterior motives, or plain unscientific (or un-whatever the standard measuring bearer was at the time)--especially in European history........

I guess...... I find it interesting that a word like Amen that has been translated in different languages....... to be spoken today as ....... "Amen"........ is used with frequency in many spiritual fields.... with some importance.....

I think it warrants investigation........

The motive for investigation may be biased.....

however, the method of scholarship does not have to be..... nor does it have to be shut down because of another bias.....

the bias of keeping the status quo....

Please advise....



Peace,
Virtue


appl appl appl

But I would have to add that the his-story so many people refer to has been all out FALSIFIED to bolster the worldview of our oppressor. Not so long ago the same intellectual community tried to say that great Zimbabwe was created by a semetic people that came to South Africa in search of King Soloman's mines... this BS was actually taught and believed by the same people that are considered 'scholars' today. The European view of history and even the catagorizations used for the world's people and languages is ALL highly suspect.
Why are we "intellectuals" welcome only when we say things people like?

Do you really believe that we are all so dumb that we only unquestioningly take the training we're given in school out into the world like good programmed droids?

One day African America is going to get enough of assassinating its own brightest - we're the only damned people in the world that do this - leaving the leadership roles to the enthusiastic but often less than capable.
Last edited {1}
Doesn't it work both ways?

I mean, to you who, believe for example, that the Greeks borrowed all their best ideas from Egypt, and are believed by history to be great on account of it:

Wouldn't it be in our best interest to welcome all the best ideas from Europe? I mean let's ABSOLUTELY plunder Europe for the best ideas it has to offer ... Not just Europe... But Asia.... Africa.... Let's dig good ideas from everywhere...including our own

And then use them to help us do * our own thing *?

Instead of shooting down our own thinkers with the tired charge of "it can't be right just because it came from European scholars" ?

Wouldn't your black intellectuals tend to be among the best judges of what the best ideas from Europe or other places are?

We just keep going nowhere with this knee jerk anti-intellectual reaction...
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×