|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2006 : 17:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Well said, John. My suspicions are raised when someone (including myself) makes a statement like "Freedom of thought must be protected."
Freedom of thought is an interesting one. Of course, with current technology (unless you believe some of the wacko conspiracy theorists) it's impossible to know what someone is thinking, so it's not a big issue, pragmatically. I've certainly entertained thoughts which would be absolutely evil if realised, however I've never intended to do so (realise them). A real "thought police" would be truly horrifying. Stay out of my head, please. 
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
it's just one of those "everybody knows" kind of things like "everybody knows that fundamentalists do bad things."
I don't know whether or not you intended it, but that last quote is somewhat loaded. I would agree that fundamentalists are statistically more likely to do bad things (because of their fundamentalist beliefs), however, there are fundamentalists who are no more likely to do bad things than non-fundamentalists. The statement also doesn't really qualify whether you mean some fundamentalists or all fundamentalists.
I'd also argue against the "everybody knows" aspect. If everybody did know, we'd be a lot closer to reducing the damage inflicted by malignant belief systems. Especially if the adherents themselves could be made to "know" it.
A safer statement would be "everybody knows fundamentalists beleive irrational things", except for the whole "everybody" issue I just mentioned.
Damn, I must've edited this reply a metric shite-load of times, my spelling is absolutely 'orrible today |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 07/18/2006 17:54:17 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 18:23:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Damn, I must've edited this reply a metric shite-load of times, my spelling is absolutely 'orrible today
Welcome to my world... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 22:42:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
Damn, I must've edited this reply a metric shite-load of times, my spelling is absolutely 'orrible today
Welcome to my world...
Ha!
My question is, is there a theory of the conservation of bad-spelling, whereby some of your bad-spelling is transferred to me, thus bringing us closer to an equilibrium where we both spell equally averge-ly? (If I'm going to invent new conservation principles, why not new words too? At least I can't mispell words I've just invented).
The (perhaps more likely) alternative is that there is no upper limit to the amount of bad spelling in the universe, and it's infectious nature will eventshually rezolt in awl of us being unayble to komyoonikayte vya the ritten wurd..... aaaghh
 |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 08:52:24 [Permalink]
|
I solved my spelling issue by realizing that it's not my spelling that is the problem. It's the translation of my spelling where problems occur. For example, most spell checkers are not programmed to recognize “Kilbonics.” I have some very good editors (Dave) who have self trained themselves to recognize and translate Kilbonics for the masses…
If only more people would take the time to learn Kilbonics, which just happens to be a much more sensible way to approach the spelling of the English language, and allow the language to evolve naturally, we could then break away from the ball and chain that is proper spelling that defies all logic by ignoring what is phonetically correct.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 09:14:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I solved my spelling issue by realizing that it's not my spelling that is the problem. It's the translation of my spelling where problems occur. For example, most spell checkers are not programmed to recognize “Kilbonics.” I have some very good editors (Dave) who have self trained themselves to recognize and translate Kilbonics for the masses…
If only more people would take the time to learn Kilbonics, which just happens to be a much more sensible way to approach the spelling of the English language, and allow the language to evolve naturally, we could then break away from the ball and chain that is proper spelling that defies all logic by ignoring what is phonetically correct.
You forgot "major paradigm shift" and "That I have been working on for decades".
Just for max crackpot points..... 
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 09:30:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd also argue against the "everybody knows" aspect. If everybody did know, we'd be a lot closer to reducing the damage inflicted by malignant belief systems. Especially if the adherents themselves could be made to "know" it.
It was loaded because that seems to be what Marf is saying, but I can't quite pin down what she's saying about fundamentalists for some reason. Most likely my inability to understand. I see no reason to think fundamentalists do any worse or better in the world than anyone else. We are all loaded with dumb ideas and even those that have smart ideas don't necessarily act all that smart. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2006 : 14:58:14 [Permalink]
|
I tend to agree more with Dawkins. All religious beliefs are irrational, in that they are not based on evidence, but on what one desires to be true.
While the "moderate" believers, as marf has defined them, don't use that belief to deny scientific knowledge, the "fundamentalist" believers cross the line to insanity when they deny facts. In either case, however, the belief in the supernatural is still irrational.
The problem I see with the moderate believers is that they tend to legitimize irrational, non-evidenced belief. They don't stray to the insane territory of the fundamentalists with their conclusions, but their basic premise ("I believe there is a god") is the same.
What is the difference between "I believe there is a god and he hates fags", or "I believe there is a god and he wants women to be subservient to men", and "I believe there is a god and he uses evolution"? They're all based on the irrational god premise, but the first two draw a conclusion that we would find insane, whereas we might agree with the conclusion of the third statement (if not the premise). So should we accept the irrational god premise only if used to draw a conclusion we like? I think, no, we should reject the irrational belief system outright. I think part of the reason the religiously insane are tolerated to such a degree is because to offend them is seen by a good portion of society to also offend the religiously moderate because they're both operating from the same "sacred" premise. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2006 : 14:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Here's an essay on scientists' tolerance of religion that says it better than I can:
quote:
...
Consider the very different treatments accorded two questions presented to Cornell University's "Ask an Astronomer" Web site. To the query, "Do most astronomers believe in God, based on the available evidence?" the astronomer Dave Rothstein replies that, in his opinion, "modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God . . . places where people who do believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions." He cites the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent and the probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics as raising the possibility of "God intervening every time a measurement occurs" before concluding that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of a god, and religious belief doesn't—and shouldn't—"have anything to do with scientific reasoning."
How much less velveteen is the response to the reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology. "No, astronomers do not believe in astrology," snarls Dave Kornreich. "It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary." Dr. Kornreich ends his dismissal with the assertion that in science "one does not need a reason not to believe in something." Skepticism is "the default position" and "one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something's existence."
In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them, the poor gullible gits; while for the multitudes who believe that, in one way or another, a divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton, there is no demand for evidence, no skepticism to surmount, no need to worry. You, the religious believer, may well find subtle support for your faith in recent discoveries—that is, if you're willing to upgrade your metaphors and definitions as the latest data demand, seek out new niches of ignorance or ambiguity to fill with the goose down of faith, and accept that, certain passages of the Old Testament notwithstanding, the world is very old, not everything in nature was made in a week, and (can you turn up the mike here, please?) Evolution Happens.
...
So why is it that most scientists avoid criticizing religion even as they decry the supernatural mind-set? For starters, some researchers are themselves traditionally devout, keeping a kosher kitchen or taking Communion each Sunday. I admit I'm surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph.D., who might in an afternoon deftly purée a colleague's PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like "Resurrection from the Dead," and say, gee, that sounds convincing?
...
I recommend reading the whole thing. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 04:23:23 [Permalink]
|
| Great essay. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 13:10:09 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote” quote:
While the "moderate" believers, as marf has defined them, don't use that belief to deny scientific knowledge, the "fundamentalist" believers cross the line to insanity when they deny facts. In either case, however, the belief in the supernatural is still irrational.
No, it is not irrational. can a belief that does not go against any scientific evidence be considered irrational? The insistence that any stance on the spiritual/metaphysical other than pure agnosticism is irrational is nonsensical. Those folks are not claiming to know God exists. They believe it. That is what religiously divides them from fundamentalists, and their beliefs are not irrational. They do have reasons for believing. In the absence of scientific evidence, they are forced to go with their intuition, and they feel the presence of spiritual forces. That is perfectly rational.
Dawkins crossed the line from science to philosophy when he started claiming that evolution proved atheism. He went outside the bounds of provable facts to unprovable beliefs. Unfortunately, he seems to think (and he's convincing many others) that he hasn't crossed that boundry, and that in fact, atheism is just as much a “fact” and “knowledge” as the theory of evolution. That is just plain wrong.
And worse, Dawkins ends up helping the religious right and hurting the Humanist movement. He hurts his own movement by chasing away people who realize his folly. (I've seen plenty of good freethinkers leave a movement that they saw as poisoned by atheistic fundamentalism.) Dawkins also helps the fundamentalists when he convinces people of his folly. People think to themselves “I'm a believer because I feel God's presence in my life (or whatever reason they have for believing), but Mr. Dawkins, a scientist, says that if evolution is true that there is no God. So I guess I should either believe evolution isn't true or become an atheist.” Gee, thanks Dawkins.
The Angier article is just more of the same narrow-minded fundamentalists atheist crap that Prometheus books has been publishing for years. Saying that scientists don't attack the whole of religion because of fear of losing grants – is she kidding!?
The saddest thing is that this has become a norm in the thinking of atheist communities. This seething disdain and condescension toward all things religious discredits the movement and all the other good things it does, and turns atheists into exactly what they hate.
And gee, what a surprise that it comes form the Council for Secular Humanism, aka the non-democratic, cult of Paul Kurtz who broke away from the AHA basically because they accepted *gasp* slightly conflicting views from a wide variety of Humanists.
I'll only further respond by quoting two other articles:
The first is “Overcoming Antagonistic Atheism to Recast the Image of Humanism” by Jeff Nall. It was published in the July/August issue of The Humanist. (They didn't post it online, but you can puchase that issue or read other articles from it here: http://www.thehumanist.org/)
quote:
While one is certainly free to criticize specific zealots like Pat Robertson, organizations like Focus on the Family or movements like the religious right, broad and inexact condemnation of all Christians or believers is irrational at best and intolerant at worst. But some atheists are now arguing that believers are incapable of rationality and that we should no longer exalt the principle of tolerance. In his essay, “An Atheist Manifesto.” Author and philosopher Sam Harris argues that “the incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition a |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/22/2006 13:10:54 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 17:18:32 [Permalink]
|
Marf, again, define what it is they believe, and I'll tell you if it goes against any scientific evidence. You say they feel there is a "god," but what properties does this god have? Define it. What can I do with this idea that I can't do better without this idea?
Nall jumps from criticizing superstition to "condemning believers." No one is condemning believers or saying that they are incapable of rational thought. That's just ludicrous. Who "desires to limit the freedoms of religious people?" |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/22/2006 17:19:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 17:42:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
No, it is not irrational. can a belief that does not go against any scientific evidence be considered irrational? The insistence that any stance on the spiritual/metaphysical other than pure agnosticism is irrational is nonsensical. Those folks are not claiming to know God exists. They believe it. That is what religiously divides them from fundamentalists, and their beliefs are not irrational. They do have reasons for believing. In the absence of scientific evidence, they are forced to go with their intuition, and they feel the presence of spiritual forces. That is perfectly rational.
Since "rational" is often used as an antonym of "emotional," I'd have to disagree. Even schizophrenics have "reasons" for doing and thinking the things they do and think, but calling them rational because they have reasons would be a very large stretch. If someone's belief in God is rooted in his childhood fear of burning in a lake of fire for eternity, I couldn't say that's any more rational than believing there's a monster in your closet. Why would "fear of the boogeyman" be rational if the boogeyman is God, but irrational if it's some lesser mythological creature? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 20:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Gorgowrote: quote:
Marf, again, define what it is they believe, and I'll tell you if it goes against any scientific evidence. You say they feel there is a "god," but what properties does this god have? Define it.
Non-fundamentalist religious believers do not have a set of beliefs that is definable in the way that you request. It is a belief about the spiritual/metaphysical, and yet you ask for it to be defined in terms of the natural/physical.
quote:
What can I do with this idea that I can't do better without this idea?
Many of the greatest humanitarians, and thousands of minor ones, have been moved to do good in the world because of their religious conviction. (People like Martin Luther King and William Sloan Coffin, and Reverend Richard Harries who Dawkins criticized.) I've heard some people argue that those individuals would be do-gooder regardless of their religious faith, but that is not a provable claim. Such people, such as the author of the article I linked (http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-4om/Duncan.html) have totally internalized a humble, but powerful-for-them form of faith that inspires them to take extra steps to make the world a better place. This type of philosophical/religious conviction isn't special to creeds, but rather, individuals. As an atheistic Humanist, I possess a strong belief that the world can be changed for the better and that my actions can make a profound difference. I don't know this, and I admit I might be wrong, but my belief inspires me in a way that changes my behavior – I think for the benefit of both myself and those around me.
Trying to pin down the usefulness or benefits of a spiritual mindset (opposed to spell-out dogma) is like trying to pin down the usefulness of “getting culture”.
As says one of my intellectual heroes, the historian Jacques Barzun, from Exeunt the Humanities: quote:
knowledge may be put to two uses: it may serve an immediate and tangible purpose by guiding technical action; and it may serve more permanent, less visible ends by guiding thought and conduct at large. If we call the first professional or vocational use, the second may be called the social or moral (or philosophical or civilizing)—the term does not matter. One is know-how, the other is cultivation.
quote:
Jeff Nall jumps from criticizing superstition to "condemning believers." No one is condemning believers or saying that they are incapable of rational thought. That's just ludicrous.
Nall was not saying that antagonistic atheists regard believers as incapable of any rational thought. That would be ludicrous.
quote:
Who "desires to limit the freedoms of religious people?"
Berry didn't write that specifically about the freethought movement. He was criticizing what is a dangerous trend as movements gain momentum, which I thought worth quoting considering what Dawkins is imply by his accusations of “child abuse”.
Do you doubt for one minute that if American society was made up of 90% atheists that there would be groups am |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/22/2006 20:28:30 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 21:03:54 [Permalink]
|
Interesting article from a Scottish newspaper about Dawkins show: http://www.sundayherald.com/53499
quote:
if his documentary makes a single statement, it's that “all religion represents a danger to our society and future”.
“I think moderate religion makes the world safe for extremists, because children are trained from the cradle to think faith in itself is a good thing. So then when someone says it's part of their faith to kill people, their actions need no further justification, and are almost respected as such.”
I find this statement from Dawkins absurd. Maybe things are radically different in the UK, the in America progressive Christians are no less outraged and critical than atheists when some nutjob guns down an abortion doctor. And the part of the statement about children being trained for faith from an early age is ironic since one of the people Dawkins interviewed was a fanatic Muslim who was raised a secular Jew in NYC. Obviously being raised secular didn't do him any good! Dawkins is straying so far out of his field, and yet he speaks as if he just as much of an expert on these socio-political issues as he is on Evolutionary Biology.
And the trend toward hatred begins...
quote:
There seems little point in debating the matter with Dawkins. He's heard and said it all before, so often that this new programme seems as much a product of exasperation as anything else. If his only core belief is in evolution, isn't he driven to despair, or even hate, by men like Yousef al-Khattab, who stand literally opposed to human progress? Dawkins answers by alluding to a classic Fawlty Towers scene. “Do you remember when Basil's car broke down and he thrashed it with a tree branch? That's what we do when we hate people who do what we think of as wicked things. Instead, we should think of them as Fawlty's car. They have a faulty component. In this case, it's faith, which makes them think that belief has nothing to do with evidence. And instead of hating that, we should be trying to cure it.”
Yeah, we don't hate religious folks, we're just trying to cure them. I think I'm starting to better understand how it feels to be a progressive Evangelical Christian. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 22:01:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Rational is the antonym of irrational.
Yes, I was talking about colloquial usage, and not the painfully-obvious dictionary definitions.quote:
Emotional is the antonym of apathy.
No, passionate or enthusiastic are antonyms of apathy. One can be emotional and still be apathetic (think depression).quote:
I consider irrational beliefs to be those beliefs that go against what can be plainly demonstrated as false.
Why so narrow a definition? If one applies absolutely precise logic and science to premises which are false, the conclusion one reaches is not necessarily also false, but instead indeterminate. In other words, if one begins to reason based on irrational premises, there isn't necessarily a way to plainly demonstrate that the conclusion is false. One can only demonstrate that the conclusion isn't necessarily true.
For example, if I assume that faster-than-light travel is possible, then I can conclude that extra-terrestrials are visiting Earth all the time. Showing that the premise is false doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. Under your usage, belief in alien abductions and even anal probing can be considered "rational."quote:
For an Australian Aborigine living in the Outback as their traditional ancestors did, the worldview of the Dreaming is a perfectly rational belief system. For people living in the first world with exposure to mass media and access to libraries, etc. it is different. In terms of worldview (which includes religious beliefs, atheism, and agnosticism) people can become irrational by denying what is plainly true. It is not plainly true that there is no such thing as a spiritual realm, or gods, or souls, or an afterlife, even if many, more specific beliefs (like that the Biblical flood literally happened) have been scientifically proven false.
Okay, now I see the problem. You're talking about "rational" behaviour within narrow societal norms. Like Mr. Spock's "in the insane society, the sane man must appear insane." The problem begins with the fact that nothing is ever "scientifically proven false" (nor proven true). It continues from there in that the Biblical Flood (to use your example) can only be called into question by assuming that God would not suspend the laws of physics during the event. Once a person is willing to grant the premise that God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, the idea that the Flood can be "plainly demonstrated as false" goes out the window.
As far as science is concerned, "a spiritual realm, or gods, or souls, or an afterlife" are simply non-questions until positive evidence is put forward in favor of them. To say that a spiritual realm exists is to suggest that there is evidence for it, and the response of scientists is, "where?" Those who believe in it fervently will simply claim that scientists don't possess the right tools to measure or quantify it, which translates simply to "I'd much rather not examine my beliefs using your brand of strict logical assessment, thanks."
Really, for me to grant that the religious ideas of primitve cultures are rational based upon the societal norms of those cultures would require that I also grant that the religious ideas of ultra-fundamentalist religions (of all kinds, including atheism) are "rational" according to their societal norms, which tend to fail to include much of Western philosophical and scientific thought. These days, after all, American Protestant Fundamentalism (APF) includes the idea that science is atheistic, and thus to be avoided at all costs. Applying the wrong standards to measure a culture's views is just as bad as using the wrong tools to build a house. You and I don't share a fundamentalist's views on science, and so what appears to him to be rational doesn't look that way to us. The real problem is that you and I think that, because those who grew up with APF also grew up in the United States, we think that they should also agree to our standards of evidence and logic. That, more than anything else, I think, is why you can consider aborigines to be rational and the APFs to be nuts.
I'm more than willing - in fact I would positively assert - that rationality, as we're talking about it here, is not a binary condition where things are either rational or irrational, but occupy a continuum from "Spock-like logicality" to "dangerously crazy." Your aborigines are somewhat close to the middle, perhaps near "quaintly self-deluded," while most APFs are closer to "don't let them teach my kids any of that crap," and anyone who blows himself up because he's been promised 72 virgins is just f-ing nuts. Where one is on the scale depends largely upon how many unevidenced premises one bases one's important decisions upon.
To come at this from another angle, by starting with the premise that what my senses tell me may not be accurate, I can still reason my way to the idea that I should act as if the outside world is "real" simply by realizing that until I have evidence that I exist only in a Matrix-like computer simulation (for example), and I can do something differently based upon that knowledge, then there's no way to practically use the premise "I exist as a simulation," so it makes no difference and I should go to work in the morning. I haven't reasoned my way to "the world exists," but only as far as "I should act as if the world exists."
I can find no way to similarly reason one's way to "God exists," and due to the logical faults which are obviously a part of things like Pascal's Wager, I can find no way to even reason one's way to "I should act as though God exists." In a like manner, I can find no chain of logic which leads to the conclusion that it's more practical or expedient to believe that souls or a spiritual realm exist than to act as if they do not. These statements, however, may simply be due to a deficit of imagination on my part.quote:
In his show, Richard Dawkins admitted that science is far from having all the answers, but then he took the liberty of claiming that it is most reasonable for us to assume that science will eventually provide all the answers to show that the universe is completely natural. I notice atheists doing that a lot, and it is a philosophical arrogance.
Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's last wife) called that attitude "scientism," and I agree that it's not a good thing. (Unfortunately, Ann Druyan has also expressed scientistic thoughts, which means little more than the "celebrities" of the skeptical movement aren't immune to hypocrisy.) Scientism isn't, of course, limited to atheists, since there exist people who think that science will (if it hasn't already) prove the existence of their god(s).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
