Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
fullywired

. - Understanding religious delusion

680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jor-el

My post was not intended as an insult.

I am short on time these days.

In response to your initial inquiry I'd say

One accounts for the differences, one understands the role perspective(subjectivity ) plays.

Sherri, I'm thick skinned I don't usually take things as an insult, even when they are intended as such, so don't worry about that. I did not see your post as an insult, but a continuation of a debate...

Yet the truth value is "in" your own judgement, it doesn't exist outside of you, hence perspective is ALL.

That is why you are correct within your own paradigm of reality, (your measure of reality) and I am correct within my own, my conclusions are different from yours because I implicitly accept some things you do not. Things that in my measure, count as evidence.

Just as the quantum universe in which we live in gives us the dual-nature of matter (wave vs particle) so will we, within our own percieved reality see what we expect to see. You don't see God, I do.

Here is an interesting article...

In the course of speculating about the nature of reality and the most fundamental elements of our universe, it is useful to draw together the various aspects of recent work in the field of quantum mechanics that have been described in earlier sequence of this document. The reader will recall that assertions have been made by Chalmers, Wheeler, and others that the most fundamental building block of our universe is not atoms or atomic elements as we have known them, but rather information itself. Information is theorized to be comprised of dual aspects, similar to the dual aspects of light, namely wave and particle. Recall that Wheeler stated that information is truly fundamental and has two basic aspects: Physical and Phenomenal. The resulting construct would imply that we live in a world where not only mathematics (Connes and Changeux) but all information is independent and fundamental. This gives rise to the question: "What is the relationship between this construct and the quantum wave nature of physical existence?"

Applying the probabilistic aspect of quantum physics to the theory of information fundamentalism illuminates a function between information and existence that not only explains the nature of reality as we perceive it, but also yields the key to altering reality through altering the probabilities of discrete information elements.

For example, there may be a threshold of probability beyond which any information element becomes a part of perceived reality - of human conscious experience. If so, "less probable" information may comprise alternative existences or realities outside (or beneath) our perceivable reality.

In this model it is important to understand the definition of "true." True is a variable condition in the same way that the existence of a quantum level particle is "probably" present at a given position at any point in time. In quantum physics a fundamental element can neither be clearly stated to be at location A or location B, but rather must be described as most probably in one location or the other.

(refer to the problem of Schrödinger’s cat Who’s Afraid of Schrödinger’s Cat?, Marshall and Zohar, William Marrow & Co., 1997.)

The Quantum Universe: An Information Systems Perspective

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChloeB

Yet the truth value is "in" your own judgement, it doesn't exist outside of you, hence perspective is ALL.

That is why you are correct within your own paradigm of reality, (your measure of reality) and I am correct within my own, my conclusions are different from yours because I implicitly accept some things you do not. Things that in my measure, count as evidence.

Yeah, but Jor-el, but knowing your past claims, about biblical prophecy playing out, how all these Jews will finally realize Jesus was the true Messiah when he returns to fulfill these prophecies, how in the world do you reconcile THAT with what you're saying above....perspective is ALL? Doesn't just believing that, accepting that, ask you to place one perspective above another, and especially the perspective of some people in the past claiming to speak for God? I don't see how you can say what you have and then claim any biblical truths at all, only individual perspectives written down over time, and if that is all they are, then why bother with any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Sherri, I'm thick skinned I don't usually take things as an insult, even when they are intended as such, so don't worry about that. I did not see your post as an insult, but a continuation of a debate...

Yet the truth value is "in" your own judgement, it doesn't exist outside of you, hence perspective is ALL.

That is why you are correct within your own paradigm of reality, (your measure of reality) and I am correct within my own, my conclusions are different from yours because I implicitly accept some things you do not. Things that in my measure, count as evidence.

Just as the quantum universe in which we live in gives us the dual-nature of matter (wave vs particle) so will we, within our own percieved reality see what we expect to see. You don't see God, I do.

Here is an interesting article...

In the course of speculating about the nature of reality and the most fundamental elements of our universe, it is useful to draw together the various aspects of recent work in the field of quantum mechanics that have been described in earlier sequence of this document. The reader will recall that assertions have been made by Chalmers, Wheeler, and others that the most fundamental building block of our universe is not atoms or atomic elements as we have known them, but rather information itself. Information is theorized to be comprised of dual aspects, similar to the dual aspects of light, namely wave and particle. Recall that Wheeler stated that information is truly fundamental and has two basic aspects: Physical and Phenomenal. The resulting construct would imply that we live in a world where not only mathematics (Connes and Changeux) but all information is independent and fundamental. This gives rise to the question: "What is the relationship between this construct and the quantum wave nature of physical existence?"

Applying the probabilistic aspect of quantum physics to the theory of information fundamentalism illuminates a function between information and existence that not only explains the nature of reality as we perceive it, but also yields the key to altering reality through altering the probabilities of discrete information elements.

For example, there may be a threshold of probability beyond which any information element becomes a part of perceived reality - of human conscious experience. If so, "less probable" information may comprise alternative existences or realities outside (or beneath) our perceivable reality.

In this model it is important to understand the definition of "true." True is a variable condition in the same way that the existence of a quantum level particle is "probably" present at a given position at any point in time. In quantum physics a fundamental element can neither be clearly stated to be at location A or location B, but rather must be described as most probably in one location or the other.

(refer to the problem of Schrödinger’s cat Who’s Afraid of Schrödinger’s Cat?, Marshall and Zohar, William Marrow & Co., 1997.)

The Quantum Universe: An Information Systems Perspective

Jo rel, the primary role of Christianity is to take the place of, therefore; in this context I can understand why you see objective and subjective as irreconcilable.

Therefore, you say one must choose.

For me I don't observe evidence of a g-d(s) or lack of evidence of a g-d(s) so how can I conclude one way or the other? I can't in all honesty..

I can wishful(believe) g-d all I want (on faith)., The level of my faith or hope is not evidence of g-d; however. I would understand that it's tells me nothing about g-d it only tells me about the depth of my wistfulness.

My faith or desire however strong, is not evidence one way or the other about g-d(s).

Basically useless information..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Yeah, but Jor-el, but knowing your past claims, about biblical prophecy playing out, how all these Jews will finally realize Jesus was the true Messiah when he returns to fulfill these prophecies, how in the world do you reconcile THAT with what you're saying above....perspective is ALL? Doesn't just believing that, accepting that, ask you to place one perspective above another, and especially the perspective of some people in the past claiming to speak for God? I don't see how you can say what you have and then claim any biblical truths at all, only individual perspectives written down over time, and if that is all they are, then why bother with any of that?

That's why use the word perspective relucantly on this thread.

When I say perspective I don't mean just an opinion, I mean a real reality viewpoint. That's why I have used the term "paradigm of reality" to get the idea across, I mean a real reality.

In other words, to put it the simplest terms, when one views reality from the perspective of a non-believer, let us say a person who is an atheist, they are actually truly correct in their beliefs within their framework of reality. They actually live in a universe where God does not exist.

On the other hand, within the reality of a believer, they live in a reality where God does actually exist.

So what we have here is different realities living within the same basic structure of the universe, the observer determines the outcome. If all that exists is purely different levels of probability as the article I posted states, then we can have multiple realities occuring within the same framework.

Applying the probabilistic aspect of quantum physics to the theory of information fundamentalism illuminates a function between information and existence that not only explains the nature of reality as we perceive it, but also yields the key to altering reality through altering the probabilities of discrete information elements.

For example, there may be a threshold of probability beyond which any information element becomes a part of perceived reality - of human conscious experience. If so, "less probable" information may comprise alternative existences or realities outside (or beneath) our perceivable reality.

In this model it is important to understand the definition of "true." True is a variable condition in the same way that the existence of a quantum level particle is "probably" present at a given position at any point in time. In quantum physics a fundamental element can neither be clearly stated to be at location A or location B, but rather must be described as most probably in one location or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jo rel, the primary role of Christianity is to take the place of, therefore; in this context I can understand why you see objective and subjective as irreconcilable.

Therefore, you say one must choose.

For me I don't observe evidence of a g-d(s) or lack of evidence of a g-d(s) so how can I conclude one way or the other? I can't in all honesty..

I can wishful(believe) g-d all I want (on faith)., The level of my faith or hope is not evidence of g-d; however. I would understand that it's tells me nothing about g-d it only tells me about the depth of my wistfulness.

My faith or desire however strong, is not evidence one way or the other about g-d(s).

Basically useless information..

And I said earlier I believe you to be correct, within your own paradigm of reality... (substitute it for any of the synonyms I used earlier, if the word gets under your skin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Well, all computer programs require initial human programming. Even AI would require bootstrap AI.

Are you really saying that music created by, say, a stream of random numbers requires both subjective and objective knowledge of the universe?

If it is music it requires subjectivity both to create it, and identify it, as music. Are the songs of the whales truly songs, or simply hunting/mating etc., communiques?

The very term, let alone the creation of, " music'" requires an integrated element of subjectivity. A random set of numbers/tones is not, in itself, music. Does the computer (or other random number generator) claim it is music ? Did it intend to create music? What was the purpose of the creation?

Music created as music has both design and purpose inherent in the creation, and thus it will involve subjective elements.

If not, then it is not "music CREATED by a random set of numbers" it is a random set of numbers which, to some subjective human ears/ tastes, sounds like a form of music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

More examples of "mental self gatification", rambling on and on to make ones self feel good. It won't make hair grow on your palms or go blind.It is neater and won't stain the sheets.The gratification is till the same, just in another part of the body.

LOL As I' ve said many times, intellectual m********ion is the most satisfying and least socially disturbing form. The great Autralian term "what a ******" (rhymes with banker)refers primarily to such intellectual pretension.

On the other hand, I attempt to raise it to an art form, which throws another perspective on it entirely.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sissy Dog

There seems to be so much time put towards trying to prove existence or non-existence of God.

There's no way to prove either. One thing that I can trust is that mankind is often arrogant enough to believe they have the answer whether it's via science, religion etc -- over and over we prove that we are human by overestimating our own knowledge.

We don't know where life came from or how to create it. We don't know what happens when you die.

We have alot of theories and none of them bring us closer together as members of the human race.

When we disagree, we argue. Then we ridicule the other for their belief, to bolster our own.

Religion is sickening. Man's arrogance is sickening.

We have homeless people, starving children, diseased and sick in third world countries dying with no hope --- and we sit and argue via a broadband connection to bolster an ego.

I'm guilty of it! Just beginning to realize nowadays that it's all fruitless, unless something of substance comes from it.

Is Love real ? Is it factual ? Does it have power ?

How about compassion ?

Where does it come from ? Is it needed ?

Love and compassion wouldn't seem to be about being right, but being able to overlook our own wants/needs for the sake of another.

Sorry for the soapbox moment, cause I'm far from worthy of calling out someone on many of the things I just mentioned.

But what really matters ? (no need to answer that really, asking myself really)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnPeniel

Here is an article to make you wonder if you right about your religion .it is a bit long so I will only post a link to it ,then you can decide whether to read it or not

.http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm

fullywired

Religion and Science has one thing in common. they both rely on one to trust that those who came before them are correct. There is evidence to support creation. And there is evidence to support evolution. It is not because both of them are correct. It is because both of them are wrong... in a sense.

The 7th seal was closed and not to be open until the days of end. A few months ago was that time. Then end is now known. But you refuse to see it like you refuse to accept all of the misconceptions in both religion and science prior to now.

I can give you the exact date. But why? What do you fear in seeking it? Does not religion require just as much faith as science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Religion and Science has one thing in common. they both rely on one to trust that those who came before them are correct. There is evidence to support creation. And there is evidence to support evolution. It is not because both of them are correct. It is because both of them are wrong... in a sense.

The 7th seal was closed and not to be open until the days of end. A few months ago was that time. Then end is now known. But you refuse to see it like you refuse to accept all of the misconceptions in both religion and science prior to now.

I can give you the exact date. But why? What do you fear in seeking it? Does not religion require just as much faith as science?

Science trusts that those who came before them were correct??? Where did you get that from? Does any modern scientist really believe the theorist who claimed in 1903 that anyone riding in an auto at thirty miles an hour would have the air sucked from their lungs? Does any modern physicist hold that Newton's laws of how the universe worked were valid? No. In no way does science trust that those who went before were totally correct. Religion, however, is another thing and is pathetically dependent on the idea that all that was recorded of the past is true and that if one reaches back far enough, he can find god walking in a garden and speaking a mother tongue.

Concerning Hawking, I am reminded of a quote by Jonathan Swift "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

If it is music it requires subjectivity both to create it, and identify it, as music. Are the songs of the whales truly songs, or simply hunting/mating etc., communiques?

The very term, let alone the creation of, " music'" requires an integrated element of subjectivity. A random set of numbers/tones is not, in itself, music. Does the computer (or other random number generator) claim it is music ? Did it intend to create music? What was the purpose of the creation?

Music created as music has both design and purpose inherent in the creation, and thus it will involve subjective elements.

If not, then it is not "music CREATED by a random set of numbers" it is a random set of numbers which, to some subjective human ears/ tastes, sounds like a form of music.

That's just your subjective opinion. You may or may not like the music it produces, but it is still music just the same.

Computers. Not particularly known for coming with objective and subjective processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

That's why use the word perspective relucantly on this thread.

When I say perspective I don't mean just an opinion, I mean a real reality viewpoint. That's why I have used the term "paradigm of reality" to get the idea across, I mean a real reality.

In other words, to put it the simplest terms, when one views reality from the perspective of a non-believer, let us say a person who is an atheist, they are actually truly correct in their beliefs within their framework of reality. They actually live in a universe where God does not exist.

On the other hand, within the reality of a believer, they live in a reality where God does actually exist.

So what we have here is different realities living within the same basic structure of the universe, the observer determines the outcome. If all that exists is purely different levels of probability as the article I posted states, then we can have multiple realities occuring within the same framework.

Branching Quantum realities are a fun concept and all, but you never see a queue of physicists willing to play the quantum suicide game. Which should probably tell you everything you need to know about them.

Also - you seem to have probability and reality mixed up. Even if probability waves exist, once collapsed, they're as objective as can be.

Whilst believer and non-believer live within different subjective realities - there is only one objective reality. The quantum world does not collapse differently for you and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Branching Quantum realities are a fun concept and all, but you never see a queue of physicists willing to play the quantum suicide game. Which should probably tell you everything you need to know about them.

Also - you seem to have probability and reality mixed up. Even if probability waves exist, once collapsed, they're as objective as can be.

Whilst believer and non-believer live within different subjective realities - there is only one objective reality. The quantum world does not collapse differently for you and I.

Indeed.

Robert Anton Wilsons novel "Schrodingers Cat" plays with the idea and has a bunch of anarchist terrorists setting Doomsday bombs to seize political control - in the certain knowledge that in one parallel universe they will succeed :lol:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

And I said earlier I believe you to be correct, within your own paradigm of reality... (substitute it for any of the synonyms I used earlier, if the word gets under your skin.)

For the record, right or wrong is immaterial, I could be wrong if I am so what I revise and adjust based on the evidence.

For now the most objective I can attain is there is no evidence one way or the other for or not for a g-d(s). There is nothing to base a conclusion on..

So for me | it's ??| irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

Basically, your examples serve to spotlight the inability to separate inferences from observations, e.g. fact from fiction.

Inference=conjecture,guess,hint,interpretation

Observation=habit of observing or noticing

Neither of these are terms or an example .....of fact verses fiction :)

Edited by cluey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

That's just your subjective opinion. You may or may not like the music it produces, but it is still music just the same.

Computers. Not particularly known for coming with objective and subjective processors.

Then we are arguing about the nature and definition of music. My definition would be that music is created with intent and purpose. It becomes music because of both intent and purpose, otherwise it is just noise.

Music can take any shapen and form, but unless it is created as music it can not be music. That is largely because of the linguistic label we attach to the concept of music (or vice versa) It is also because, by definition, only humans can formulate the concept of music, attach the label "music", and create the product of music. Any other sounds, like whale "song" or the wind in the trees may resemble human created music, but technically it can't be music, even when we say it is. Generally, music is defined as a human art, and the very word comes from the art of the original muses

I might be wrong here. Its just possible that some ape families might be able to conceive of primitive rhythm /beat, and structure music, but i've never heard of his happening.

I not sure if that is a subjective opinion. I think it might be possible to get an accurate/technical definition of what constitutes music and what does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Then we are arguing about the nature and definition of music. My definition would be that music is created with intent and purpose. It becomes music because of both intent and purpose, otherwise it is just noise.

Music can take any shapen and form, but unless it is created as music it can not be music. That is largely because of the linguistic label we attach to the concept of music (or vice versa) It is also because, by definition, only humans can formulate the concept of music, attach the label "music", and create the product of music. Any other sounds, like whale "song" or the wind in the trees may resemble human created music, but technically it can't be music, even when we say it is. Generally, music is defined as a human art, and the very word comes from the art of the original muses

I might be wrong here. Its just possible that some ape families might be able to conceive of primitive rhythm /beat, and structure music, but i've never heard of his happening.

I not sure if that is a subjective opinion. I think it might be possible to get an accurate/technical definition of what constitutes music and what does not.

Yet madrigal was polyphonic, or how about chants, both considered music.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChloeB

That's why use the word perspective relucantly on this thread.

When I say perspective I don't mean just an opinion, I mean a real reality viewpoint. That's why I have used the term "paradigm of reality" to get the idea across, I mean a real reality.

In other words, to put it the simplest terms, when one views reality from the perspective of a non-believer, let us say a person who is an atheist, they are actually truly correct in their beliefs within their framework of reality. They actually live in a universe where God does not exist.

On the other hand, within the reality of a believer, they live in a reality where God does actually exist.

So what we have here is different realities living within the same basic structure of the universe, the observer determines the outcome. If all that exists is purely different levels of probability as the article I posted states, then we can have multiple realities occuring within the same framework.

Well then you better go ahead and start quoting Peter Pan, that every time someone says they don't believe in fairies, a fairy dies. Because what you are saying here, that God only exists if you believe in your "paradigm of reality", is basically saying we create God. And again that leaves no place for your biblical truths, if the belief creates God, you can write your own holy book according to how you believe it to be and create God how you believe it to be.

If believer/non-believer determine if God exists, what if you applied that to anything......or are you just applying that to God? If I believe in big foot, am I going to create big foot in my paradigm of reality? I'm sorry, I think an objective reality exists....we interpret it in different ways, but I don't think our beliefs control what is objective reality is, just that we are limited being trapped in the subjective in determining what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Well then you better go ahead and start quoting Peter Pan, that every time someone says they don't believe in fairies, a fairy dies. Because what you are saying here, that God only exists if you believe in your "paradigm of reality", is basically saying we create God. And again that leaves no place for your biblical truths, if the belief creates God, you can write your own holy book according to how you believe it to be and create God how you believe it to be.

If believer/non-believer determine if God exists, what if you applied that to anything......or are you just applying that to God? If I believe in big foot, am I going to create big foot in my paradigm of reality? I'm sorry, I think an objective reality exists....we interpret it in different ways, but I don't think our beliefs control what is objective reality is, just that we are limited being trapped in the subjective in determining what it is.

Exactly , our beliefs do not control objective reality. They can color it(subjective) but a tree is a tree whether we beleive in it or not..

Well said Clobear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChloeB

Exactly , our beliefs do not control objective reality. They can color it(subjective) but a tree is a tree whether we beleive in it or not..

Well said Clobear.

LOL, here's a little science experiment of my own to debunk all this "create your own reality" nonsense, no QM expertise required. Have you ever came to some steps or a curb and weren't really paying attention and you step up too early? Now you believed that step was there, but then when you put your foot down, klunk, surprise, not there! Collapsing wave lengths, perception, whatever, you're still gonna bust your **** no matter what you believe. Objective reality exists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

I not sure if that is a subjective opinion. I think it might be possible to get an accurate/technical definition of what constitutes music and what does not.

Not so sure that you will.

From the Wikipedia article on Music:

To many people in many cultures music is an important part of their way of life. Greek philosophers and ancient Indian philosophers defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies and vertically as harmonies. Common sayings such as "the harmony of the spheres" and "it is music to my ears" point to the notion that music is often ordered and pleasant to listen to. However, 20th-century composer John Cage thought that any sound can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound."[2] Musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez summarizes the relativist, post-modern viewpoint: "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus ... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

LOL, here's a little science experiment of my own to debunk all this "create your own reality" nonsense, no QM expertise required. Have you ever came to some steps or a curb and weren't really paying attention and you step up too early? Now you believed that step was there, but then when you put your foot down, klunk, surprise, not there! Collapsing wave lengths, perception, whatever, you're still gonna bust your **** no matter what you believe. Objective reality exists!

Excellent pull, Clobear. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Well then you better go ahead and start quoting Peter Pan, that every time someone says they don't believe in fairies, a fairy dies. Because what you are saying here, that God only exists if you believe in your "paradigm of reality", is basically saying we create God. And again that leaves no place for your biblical truths, if the belief creates God, you can write your own holy book according to how you believe it to be and create God how you believe it to be.

If believer/non-believer determine if God exists, what if you applied that to anything......or are you just applying that to God? If I believe in big foot, am I going to create big foot in my paradigm of reality? I'm sorry, I think an objective reality exists....we interpret it in different ways, but I don't think our beliefs control what is objective reality is, just that we are limited being trapped in the subjective in determining what it is.

I'd post this Copa wins the internet with this post ! And, if I may be so bold to speak on your behalf, our money rides on gravity too

Copasetic quotes:

Edit:" By the way these kind of "wishy-washy", "You can't prove objective reality exists arguments" are silly. They are childish. And are non-productive. I can claim to you right now, there is purple unicorns living on pluto--Obviously, since you can't disprove this statement it must be true?

No, while the statement doesn't lend itself to disproof it is meaningless statement about our world. It tells us nothing by way of our reality, no different than "you can't prove objective reality exists independent of my mind". Which is true, you could be living in the matrix and all this reality is really part of your subjective experience--Now disproove or prove some part of that.....

You can't, its a unfalsifiable concept and as such may make for great bar-talk, but in practical terms is worthless. Now, You can turn around and argue with me to provide evidence for this "so-called" objective reality and I'll kindly ask you hop out a second story window and see how arguments with gravity go. Of course that hasn't disproved your matrix, but a collective of people loosing their arguments with gravity sure as hell provide a lot more meaningful evidence of this "objective-reality" than it does to own personal reality.

So I suppose from a "theoretical" standpoint you are free to exist in your own private universe, however I wouldn't test the boundary rules of what the rest of us experience as "objective reality" (My money is on gravity, sorry its nothing personal. "

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Inference=conjecture,guess,hint,interpretation

Observation=habit of observing or noticing

Neither of these are terms or an example .....of fact verses fiction :)

In practical terms Cluey, this post tells me nothing, other then you know how to look up definitions.

:clap::tsu:

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

In practical terms Cluey, this post tells me nothing, other then you know how to look up definitions.

:clap::tsu:

oh yeah......intelligent answer that completely explains what it is you falsely said...................

:hmm:

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.