Total posts: 459
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods?
Some suggest that even in the OT - there are two gods - jehovah and lucifer. Thor and Loki. Two brothers forever in competition.
Can this be extended to allah and jehovah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I never mentioned we in my last post. You are intentionally bringing things up which have been answered. Please stick to the topic - and please add new information.
If you cannot do this - please leave this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When are you going to get back on topic?
If you don't have any new information - stay away and let others contribute.
Everyone on this site learns from everyone else. That is the nature of a forum. It is not about you or about me. It is the forum. And if you are too dumb to understand that- it is your problem, not mine.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Would you agree that the majority of atheists would consider freedom of speech as part and parcel of what they believe as atheists or as humans?No. The majority of atheists are Chinese where freedom of speech is considered a privilege granted by the state and not a human right.
--> @oromagiNo idea what the atheists want to do with it ask them.I think I can speak for the majority of atheists when I say that the First Amendment ought to preserved, making the plan to ban all religion impossible.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6101/post-links/265547
Sorry, my mistake. I now realize you are distinguishing between American Atheists and ALL Atheists. If we to narrow the question to American Atheists, would that make a difference in your opinion?
I tend to think that religious folk as a rule consider freedom of speech as a bad thing.I doubt that.
Why do doubt this? Religious folk don't generally like other religions having a say. They might tolerate it because they want to be able to do it themselves - but if given a choice, don't you think they would block anyone else from speaking - say like the do in Indonesia or India or Pakistan or Iran?
I suspect this is why they agree with censorship and laws to do with defamation.Keep in mind that from the perspective of the religious they have figured out the secret to eternal happiness and they are just trying to make sure we get a chance to enjoy it.
Which religions think they have figured out the secret to eternal happiness? Islam means suffering. christianity is more about joy than happiness. Hinduism and Buddhism both generally think life is about suffering and that nirvana is not eternal happiness - but eternal nothingness. So I am a little confused by your answer.
what do you think of the current "cancel culture"
Thanks for your link.
- and the popular view of banning "hate speech"?I am opposed to banning any hate speech. Hate is a feeling and feelings ought not to be regulated by the state. I am opposed to adding additional penalties to criminal punishments for hate or any other thoughts or feelings experienced while committing crimes. We should punish the act and not the motivation.
So you are a libertarian as well.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Because there's many different interpretations of God, Religion, and how one ought live.I'd imagine.
Ok. But let's not talk about others. Let's talk about you. What is your interpretation of god, religion and how one ought to live?
Do you think it is inconsistent with your interpretation of god and freedom of speech?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Same with my late brother. He was very religious and also very libertarian.
But don't think it is a bit inconsistent? How can one believe in one god, and believe in freedom of religion?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Then atheists and theist will have to live together.
What an intriguing idea. When you say "live" - do you mean exist or tolerate each other and their ideas or in a mutual respect where theists have to submit to the overarching views of the atheist?
After all, every legal system requires a universal system which dictates right and wrong. muslims and christians can tolerate each subject to the atheist's moral system or christians and atheists' can tolerate each other subject to islam, Or muslims and atheists can tolerate each other subject to christian's system. The question is whose system will be the authoritative one.
In Indonesia - everyone is subject to Islam. In America, there is a ongoing battle between the fundies and the lefties. Is the nation Christian or Secular? who' morals will be the norm and who will be subject to them?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
--> @oromagiNo idea what the atheists want to do with it ask them.I think I can speak for the majority of atheists when I say that the First Amendment ought to preserved, making the plan to ban all religion impossible.
orogami,
I like what you write. You make a lot of sense at times. Would you agree that the majority of atheists would consider freedom of speech as part and parcel of what they believe as atheists or as humans? I tend to think that religious folk as a rule consider freedom of speech as a bad thing. I suspect this is why they agree with censorship and laws to do with defamation.
But along with that position of yours - what do you think of the current "cancel culture" - and the popular view of banning "hate speech"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Boring! And once more - nothing to respond too. You have added no new information. You asked above, I responded. That is the end of it. You don't like my answers. I don't like your repeating yourself.
I would prefer it if you just kept to the topic. It would be nice if you could either advance your ideas rather than continually criticizing everyone else - after the fact. And please don't misconstrue that as being a victim. There is a difference between fair criticism and what you are doing. Being fairly criticized is part of what this forum enables us to do - in order to correct and see ideas evolve. Yet, that is not what you do. What you do is repeat over and over again - even after you have been soundly corrected. As I have said before - you think you know everything - and that you cannot be corrected. Now I am not going to presume that I might be able to teach you. Yet, I cannot recall even once where you have accepted on any level that you were mistaken. Not one.
And that Stephen is a classic sign of someone who is narcissistic. OF someone who refuses to learn. OF someone who thinks they are better than everyone else.
As I said - Boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
With respect - you are presupposing that Fauzlaw's god does things in a human way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Gee, another entire post with nothing necessary to respond too.
Are you actually able to stick to the topic. Some people want to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject. Here.>>>>>"Proving god is a lie" author dimtim https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?Stephen, that topic and this topic are perhaps close in relation to topics - yet they don't have the same focus or scope.Opinion. And mine is that they are almost identical. They both concern the existence or the non existence of god. Like it or not.This one is asking for arguments for and against god.Yes and his existence . You have given your own thoughts and finished by saying;" For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth"#11 <<<< that, sunshine is YOU saying god does not exist.. so you see, YOU are talking existence of god and now pretending that you are not.That one was directed towards encouraging atheists to stop using arguments that christians don't actually use.Nope. You make it clear the the "us" & the "we" should carry the burden of proving that god does not exist. Do you see those words,? They are the same in this thread as they are in your own thread. So stop your bullshite.Given that was the case, there was no need for me to use any arguments that were either for or against god.But you clearly say the "we" and "us" should take the " bull by the horns" and prove god does not exist instead of demanding the theist prove god does exist.That was your clear message and the title of your thread "Proving god is a lie" . You put the burden on we and us to "prove god is a lie"and this thread is almost identical.it was to plant the idea that producing a strawman understanding of god was actually counterintuitive to proving god false.OK. and that burden was put on "us" & "we" to prove god DOES NOT EXIST> And put on us and we by YOU!
You are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. Given that I started the other topic, it goes without saying what I was attempting to do. I have explained that already. This topic is about existence - although I did not use that exact word here - it is the substance of what I said. That is not backpedaling. That is clarification for you, since anyone else would understand that is what I meant.
In relation to my topic which I started, it was clearly as I indicated above. Of course, for those who were so wrapped up in their own pre-conceived understanding of god, it would be too difficult not to respond as you have. It is not my fault that your prejudices led you up the garden path. But now that you have been enlightened - perhaps we can move forward.
I really have no idea what you are getting at it with "we" and "us". My point is that "we" = non-theists and atheists and the same with us. My contention above in that other thread is that it is dumb to use a strawman argument to disprove god. If that is the best that "we" have, and for many unfortunately it seems to be all we have, then atheism and non-theism needs to step up if we wish to be part of the discussion.
The issue for you seems to be that this attitude of mine is anti everything you tend to hold. You so it seems wants the theist to answer all your questions - but you do not want to put yourself under the microscope. And given your lack of insight into most things, I can understand why you might want to avoid this like corona virus. I prefer not to be a coward.
I do believe that the non-theist ought to grab the bull by the horn. Nothing you have said has made me want to change my view on this. In fact what you say - confirms my position.
What does amuse me however is that you find my views as a non-theist so distasteful. It seems strange given that non-theists and atheists are said to have nothing in common except their non-belief. Surely that ought to include the doctrine of the burden of proof? I certainly accept that non-theists such as myself have nothing in common with the old guard like yourself. Yet, in this new generation, we are starting to recognize that unless we put forward a positive assertion of ourselves, then we will become as irrelevant as your generation.
"You cannot beat something with nothing." is an old slogan by a former president. The older atheists did not agree with this and are dying out. The newer generation of thinking non-theists see the truth in this statement and have decided to do something about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It is about god and it is about arguments for and against god. I have simply asked you questions concerning your comments about god that you say are against his existence and wondered why you didn't mention "pedophiles and evolution" in your OWN thread on the very same subject. Here.>>>>>"Proving god is a lie" author dimtim https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079-proving-god-is-a-lieNot a single mention !?
Stephen, that topic and this topic are perhaps close in relation to topics - yet they don't have the same focus or scope.
This one is asking for arguments for and against god.
That one was directed towards encouraging atheists to stop using arguments that christians don't actually use. Given that was the case, there was no need for me to use any arguments that were either for or against god. it was to plant the idea that producing a strawman understanding of god was actually counterintuitive to proving god false.
Hopefully this answers the one partially relevant question you raised in that post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stop talking in circles - - your questions spring from a paranoia that I am someone else. You are delusional. But that is fine. And who said I was annoyed?
You really are just amusing the rest of us with your "off track" nonsense.
And whatever I say or think or change my mind is my business - not yours. Unlike you, I don't know it all. I am prepared to learn and change and adapt as new information comes to hand. You on the other hand - could never possibly change or learn anything new - you are unteachable - another word for a "know it all".
why don't you start answering the questions of the string topic - not trying to turn me upside in a tactic to find goblins under a mushroom.
The argument is about god - not about whether I am a fraud or not.
Until you return to the topic at hand in respect to what is being asked - I will refuse to engage with you. Only when you engage with a topic will I answer or respond to you.
I will not continue down your little rabbit holes to give air to your delusions.
If you ask questions that are relevant then we will have a happy relationship, otherwise I AM NOT INTERESTED.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If you think me using the terms "fires of Gehenna" proves anything - it prove I am Jewish.
I am not Jewish. I am not christian. I am non-religious.
You on the other hand are a fraud. You purport to be a christian. Yet your words don't match up with typical christian thought.
Yet who am I to tell you how to live and to identify as? You identify as a christian, that is true. yet, identification is not necessarily the measure of all things.
so if you are a christian - I am pleased to not be one.
If you are not a christian but an atheist pretending to be a christian, then you embarrass non-theists because yours is a game not a conversation.
religion is dangerous. mocking religion and its adherents will pour petrol onto an already hot fire. perhaps you are more dangerous than the religious people.
Still, it is a matter for you. you just are NOT funny. for anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You excused Stephen from entering details in his bio because he is an atheist. Why are you not excusing me for the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What part of I am going to put these words aside and start again, don't you understand?
You seem bent on analyzing every one of my words. I have attempted to explain. You just ignore my explanations so why would I care to provide anymore.
You are obviously so "deep" in your own way that nothing I add can persuade you one way or the other. So stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No mention of Islam that is terrorising the globe as we write. He seems overly desperate to me to want to distance himself from Christianity.
I used the term religion - this is a general term. I then used particularly referring to one of the religions. Christianity.
I keep asking myself - why does this Stephen keep analyzing every word and sentence I make? Stephen, just FYI, I am not the messiah. My words, like everyone else on this forum, are words that are meant to ask, answer, and attempt to produce discussion. I am flattered you make so much of my words, but surely, such a person of your skills has much better things to be doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Is there a link for the study or stats showing atheists have never killed anyone ever?
Although your questions seems to have merit, it is based on a logical fallacy.
Christians and people of religion have causes that they do things towards. Atheists or non-theists are not a collective group with similar ideologies or causes. Not in the main anyway. Sometimes you do see a whole of non-theists gather together and use their similar views to change the world - which might well include "getting rid of religion". Yet these are not the non-theists in the main - just the extreme and out end persons who have ACTUALLY thought about their position.
Sometimes religious groups suggest that Communism is atheism. And although there is a sprinkling of truth to this - because it is a self confessed atheistic political theory - it is not a consensus of atheists. And communists did not kill in the name of atheism but in the name of communism. IT also killed lots of atheists not just religious people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
After theists what group will you obliterate next to make you happy?
Probably fascists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Not only are you unable to engage with humor, it seems you fail with reason as well. And perhaps understanding simple comprehension too.
Given your perspective on the world as a Christian, this should not surprise me. Your arrogance is breathtaking though, aren't Christians mean to be humble and meek?
I prefer the fires of Gehenna than the trenches you exist in.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why would I want to become a christian? I don't believe in god. I do not see any evidence that god exists. I am a non-theist. There is no reason that I can think of why I would want to become a christian.
Brother DThomas is a perfect example of why I don't want to be a christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
So regarding evolution, what is it 'about evolution, that you arrive at your subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
Because if god used evolution then god is cruel. evolution is the survival of the fittest or the strongest. It is about pursuing life - no matter what - to the detriment of everything else.
evolution is cruel by nature. yes, it has beautiful aspects. yet it inevitably leads to death. the gods that are said to exist - are admittedly varied - and some do belong in the ordinary chain of life philosophies - but the big three religions use god as the ultimate source of life.
evolution may not disprove the roman gods or the greek gods or the gods of the indians or the gods of the more ancient peoples - but it certainly disproves the jewish, muslim and christian god. who all are ultimately the same.
the big three religions - and thier god is the source of life and good and loving life - evolution seeks life - but ends in death, - for life to succeed something needs to keep dying. change and mutation and adaption require death - for the strongest to survive - means the weak has to die.
evolution is true - and eats at the heart of gods of love. and of life. for a god of life to use evolution is inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think you are trying to pick a fight. zeus only knows why.
the opening poster asked our subjective opinions.
What are the 2 best arguments for and against God? This is a question of subjective opinion, and I am curious to hear your thoughts whoever you are.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6115/post-links/265096
I gave two of what I thought were subjective reasons for god and then two which I subjectively thought proved him not.
You pick up on the fact that I say evil is not a good reason but the existence of pedophile priests subjectively are a good reason to disprove god. ?????
This somehow brought about your "questioning me".
I also provided evolution as a good reason as well.
I never suggested that it was an either / or position. I never suggested or hinted it was a one is better than the other position. I merely produced two subjective reasons why god does not exist. I think there are many other reasons as well.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Starting again means - not making assumptions until I can ascertain a lot more details.
I don't believe in god. That is my starting point. Everything else can wait until evidence presents itself.
Are you a Christian by the way? Do you believe Jesus was real? Do you think Christianity is a danger to children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I can see the appeal of believing because of "life & death" and "crime & justice".Though I still think them illusions for believing in God.But seems to me easy enough for a number of religious believers to accept evolution, and continue to believe.Some see allegory in the Bible, or man's attempts to describe as best he 'can Gods world, rather than the literal word of God.Regarding pedophiliac priests., the Bible is 'rife of people who did not follow Gods will, even if they were Kings, priests, his chosen people.Though if you mean the The Problem of Evil argument, I suppose I'd understand that as case for some atheists.
I don't know why you think either life or death is an illusion.
BTW I don't believe in god, yet life is either a random accident of amazing impossibilities or it was designed. Death seems fundamentally opposed to the notion of life. It strikes me odd that given the enormous odds against life, that death somehow managed to survive.
I did not use the problem of evil argument because it is not a good argument against god. I used so called priests of god because if god's best people are like that - then obviously he does not exist.
it is true that some religious people follow evolution - yet that is a matter for them. For me - it my subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
Created:
Thanks everyone for your comments.
I would like to think that I am open to learning new things and to have my views changed when confronted with new ideas. So thanks.
When I read some of my posts, I think I do come across a little or a lot contradictory. So thanks Stephen for pointing that out. And thanks Zed and others for noting my inconsistency for calling for people to stop giving air time to religious stuff when it is plain I am doing just that. I have decided I will stop calling for that for it does not make sense.
I am going to simply request that everyone delete my previous comments since many of them are nonsense and unhelpful.
And I will try and start again.
Thanks again.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I have never been banned from any site.
I suppose I am being paranoid. It is just frustrating.
I am always up for a good discussion. It appears that some are here just to spew nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The two best arguments for God are "life & death" and "crime & justice".
The two best arguments against God are evolution and the pedophiliac priests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Given your inability to engage with humor, there is little point in engaging you with argument.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why is it that everyone thinks I am someone else?
I am not willows. I am not tradesecret. I am not ethang5. I am not brotherdthomas. I am not PGA2.0.
So over the politics.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Isn't that exactly what some pretend "religious persons" like Stephen and the Brother want?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So agreed, how do I stop it?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It was put to me that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question.Yes and put to you by me, here>>>> #154
Ahhh - So now you are bragging about yourself? How delightful.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Lemming - ok. But let me think about it ok?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have explained to you "agreeable with the bible" before. Why do you choose to ignore my response to you as though I did not respond?
My point was and remains the same - the things you say about the bible are NOT in the bible in any way that anyone else understands them. It is difficult to have a discussion with you because you make out the bible is saying something entirely different to what it is saying. That is why you are "disagreeable" with the bible. And why it would be better if you were more agreeable.
Everyone disagrees with you. Neither the Christians, nor the Muslims, nor the Jews, nor the atheists. NO ONE agrees with your disagreeableness.
I only have to read it once - and as I said - for me it is not a matter of believing the bible anymore than me having to agree with Plato or Aristotle or any particular myth.
If we cannot agree with what the bible says - then it is pointless having a discussion with you. You are someone who "knows it all" and cannot be taught. You are what people refer to as "unteachable".
Created:
It was put to me that I am inconsistent in my position in respect of the above question. And perhaps, he is correct in his assessment.
Nevertheless, until there is a simple manner on how we can do it, then the ordinary cut and thrust of the so called religious discussion on this forum is unhelpful.
It goes around and around and around - it gets bitter and twisted and nasty.
I wonder how many others think this is the case or whether I am alone? Please care to comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you have any conception of how dangerous religion is and in particular christianity?
You seem to think it is just a game. The average atheist or non-theist thinks that religion is nothing and based on nothing and that it will erode over time.
History shows otherwise. History shows how dangerous it is.
We are standing in a unique time in history where we can cut the cancer out if we take the right strategies. You are giving them airtime. You are giving them hope. You are giving them oxygen. Yes, I have raised this topic, so I am guilty as well. Yes, I have responded to others - so yes I am guilty as well. And perhaps I should stop.
But I do take the view that the ends justifies the means - I don't have to be consistent. Marx is correct. Religion is one of those institutions which cause inequality and ought to be stamped out.
This is why non-religious need to take the bull by the horns - for our children, for our principles, for our future survival. Who are the groups most likely to be anti-vaxxers? Who are the groups most likely to deny climate change? Who are the groups who are most likely to start a war over religious views? Who are most likely to defund public schools? Who are most likely to hate and spread hate? This is why we need to think outside the box.
Yet it seems you are comfortable - doing whatever it is that you are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
If it were possible for you to understand sarcasm, which evidently even you in your ironic fake persona seems unlikely, then you would have seen what was written in that light.
You are so obviously a fake, and not even a funny one, that it does embarrass non-theists like me when I read the stuff that you write. Yes, it was probably amusing in the first instance, but people with a desire to find bridges between opposing views on the world, see such humor as distasteful and backwards.
I merely responded in kind to your words - expecting at the time that you understand my sarcasm and respond as you most predictably ought to have done. I was surprised it too you some while to pick up my words. Yet, given the buffoon you are attempting too build, this too should not surprise me.
I am not a Christian. And you saying that I am, does not change the fact. I am a non-theist. I don't refer to myself as an atheist because I think that is intellectually misleading. Yet, if others refer to themselves as such, that is their prerogative. I do for me what I think is right. Others can do the same for themselves.
Burden of Proof does lie with the theist by default. I have never resisted the philosophy of this notion. Yet, pragmatically it only ends up with everyone going around in circles. You might prefer that. Obviously you do because it enables you to continue living in your imaginary place of empowerment. I prefer to think outside the box. I prefer to challenge the accepted defaults in society. I prefer rather to find solutions to problems. Going around and around in circles mounting the same old boring arguments has not achieved anything. It really has not. Religious people remain religious people. Yeah more and more might be less inclined to label themselves as such but they retain the traditions but now are under the radar. And this does not even take on board of the millions of people every year who become religious - from atheistic backgrounds.
While the non-theists or the non- religious in this world allow the religious people to set the agenda - which we do by insisting without question that they are the ones who have the B.of P. then the non-religious have no choice but to sit back and respond. Even you Stephen get caught with this - don't you? You start threads and they end up going around and around in circles. You start with an interesting thought - and then hand the bat and ball over the theist who takes it and hits a home run and then you stand around in the middle of the field wondering what the F just happened.
And how do you respond? like every atheist who cannot think outside of the box. If that is how you want to play this - that is fine. It is a matter for you. Yet if I want to do something different, that is my prerogative. I am not tied to the box that you are tied to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If and when I want to talk about what I believe is a matter for me. I don't believe in god and I certainly don't believe I owe you any explanation over and above what I have already given. Stop harassing me. Talk about the subject. Don't ask me to have to repeat myself. I won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
more agreeable with the bibl
Duh! I have answered this on more than one occasion. Just because you don't like my answer does not change the facts.
Not that you care about facts. Stick to the topic - not the person.
And if you can't do that - then well, that proves you are full of hot air and not substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother, did you forget your own memo?
You indicated that it is ONLY theists who require a bio. This provided you with an exemption for Stephen since he is an atheist and going to Hell. Well since I, according to you are going to be joining him, since I too am not a theist, you have also given me an exemption.
I am not pretending to know the bible when clearly I don't know it as well as you.
All your comments are doing are reinforcing my point that the bible is a book that ought to be burnt. Get me a lighter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So what? In fact I embrace contradiction and inconsistencies.
It is not as though I have any reason to be consistent or non-contradictory. I can think what I like and be as preposterous as I wish to be.
You are the one continuing to point out these things as though it means something.
The only measure I need to live by is myself. And I change my position as new evidence or the wind arises.
I like logic and reason - so far as they don't become some kind of absolute - since absolutes do not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What a deluded little person you are. I have no agendas. I have nothing to gain.
I am a non-theist. This means i don't believe in a god or gods or anything supernatural. I just want the truth to be heard. And YOU - want to hide the truth behind subterfuge and innuendo.
I say the atheist's truth is better than hiding behind a lie. You want to hide behind a lie. Well I am one of those who have been let down by your kind of behaviour and talk and wont put up with it anymore.
Your generation is DEAD. Or dying at least.
Us, in the new - have new ways of dealing with these things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I am not a christian, so cannot speak as to how they think.
same as non-theists or atheists. Everyone is different. yet, surely there must be some basic agreed terms that christians agree with - for instance - the WCC has a statement of faith that all churches have to agree to before they can have a seat at the table. And there are 1000s of churches on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not sure what you were referring to.
which post in particular?
Created: