Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Delano

What is your definition of Spirituality?

Recommended Posts

How is that applicable? this formula is abstract, but it deals with mass/matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique, of course if evidence comes along to prove a previous idea is wrong that is terrific, and a great thing because we advance knowledge.  But to cling to old ideas when evidence disproves it is just silly (as in the case with race).  Further to conjure up ideas without proof to dispute something that has been proven is just silly and an exercise in magical thinking.  For example, Newton's laws of gravity were proven wrong by Einstien. No reasonable person--certainly not a scientist--will cling to Newton's laws in the light of new information.

But in terms of our day to day struggles and getting through this thing called life, being aware that gravity is a warping of space-time is largely irrelevant.  So what people believe and how that reconciles with science is a completely different conversation.

-----

@Delano, Matter is indeed matter the formula E=MC2 is an equation describing the vast amount of energy matter has not what matter is.  

The mind has finite ability so our perceptions of what is real is indeed a function of the physical limitations of our brain.  But we have not fully explored the potential of the brain or it's energy, so there is a lot we don't know about the brain's potential and what it is capable of doing or even perceiving.

There are people who theorize that we are part of some complex program.  This seems perfectly plausible for a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization to create. So this could all be as fake as the news we consume.

Actually the fact that doctors can stimulate the brain in such a way to create the NDE experience we so often hear about; the feeling of happiness, the beckoning bright light, etc is one of the things that make me skeptical about those NDE accounts being other worldly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy that sounds more like delusional thinking. Dreaming you're ridng a light wave. Then waking up and changing the world is Magickal Thinking. 

@Troy Newtonian physics isn't exactly wrong. The equatuon fir gravity atill applies it just depends on the field. Also Gravity is still a big unknown . I reckon it is manifesting through other forces like magnetism and the syting and weak force that holds particles together. Alrhough if youbhave sources that show otherwise please post them.

Equality and equivalency may be simialr or lonkes to essence. But I havent given this rigourous thought. I am using the words from both a logical and methamatical perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy I don't think it's "silly" to keep an open mind about profound matters.  What is silly is for those who don't believe race exists but keep whining about racism.  Or for those who have mixed emotions about the "impossible", and  who talk about the mind being "finite" but think that they have infinite knowledge when it comes to controversial subjects.    :o 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind is to Brain as Spirit is to body. Both the mind and the spirit are the inspiration of the physical.

The mind not being physical may not have limits. 

I don't think its possible to explore the mind nor consciousness scientifically since they don't have a material existence in space/time. Studying the brain to understand the mind seems like a poor approximation but it is all thst we have to work with presently.

@Troy  so you are more comfortable that we are in a Matrix like false reality.  In which case everyone's reality is false. Unless you are the One. Who could bend reality through will. Sounds suspiciously close to my definition of Magick.

Also I don't beleive the mind and the brain are the same they aren't even similar. 

Because the mind is a hypothesis, an idea, or a theory that may be pure mythology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I don't really understand the first point.

As far as the second, sure Newton's equation work well enough to predict come movements, but it fails to predict the orbit of Mercury which is how it was discovered to be wrong. The example, of Mercury's orbit, is well known and you can easily find it on your own.  If you have trouble finding it let me know.

--------------

Cynique, you are twisting my words. I never wrote, nor do I believe, that one should not keep an "open mind" profound matters.  What I reject is holding on to a belief that has been proven to be wrong. 

Also one does not have to believe in "race' to fight racism. There is a difference.  I know full well trying to break down the science of race to a racist as he slips the noose around my neck would be futile. This very website is a consequence of racism, not race.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique part of the problem I have with this and the racism discussion is that key words haven't been defined. Which makes the discussion more lively but less focused .

1919: During a total solar eclipse, Sir Arthur Eddington performs the first experimental test of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

The findings made Einstein a celebrity overnight, and precipitated the eventual triumph of general relativity over classical Newtonian physics.

In 1919, Newton’s law of universal gravity still dominated scientific discourse, as it provided extremely accurate explanations of physical observations. ButEinstein had a major issue with Newton’s theory: It wasn’t consistent with his own special theory of relativity, which predicted that space and time were relative, forming a four-dimensional continuum called spacetime. He conceived a general theory of relativity, in which gravitational fields would cause warps in spacetime, thus weaving gravity into the continuum.

One prediction of general relativity was that light should not travel in a perfectly straight line. While traveling through spacetime and nearing the warp induced by an object’s gravitational field, light should curve — but not by much. A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9miles long. Newtonian physicsalso predicted light would bend due to gravity, but only by half as much as Einstein’s theory predicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is all about how each person defines the words they are using  and is more an exercise in ambiguity than anything else.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted an explanation of Einstein's theory.  Newtonian physics is not wrong. What you are confusing is the scale.  Which i mentioned by using field. I was using that term from a physics point of view.  

What you may be referring to is that Newtonian Physics  doesn't work at the quantum level. 

@Troy.  What was the point that was confusing. If possible I will provide clarification. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned the quantum realm. I'm not sure why you introduced that since I used a planet's orbit to make my point.

If you are unhappy the word "wrong" how about "less precise." Though I suspect if you were a passenger on a spacecraft headed for Mercury you'd want to use the correct calculation, not the "less Precise" one.

Here is a blog post with describes, in lay terms, why Newton's laws fails to accurately describe Mercury's orbit.

Don't worry about the point I did not understand. Let's just stick with this issue for now.  

Were you previously aware of Einstein correctly explaining the orbit of Mercury? If not, does this new information change your thoughts on the accuracy of Newtown's laws at the macro scale?  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy the article said the difference was miniscule. I have never hear a pilot mention what degeee minutes and second he was going to land the plane. However you take more planes than i do. 

You are confusing precision with accuracy. Newtown wasn't wrong. He was less precise  by a miniscule amount.  It just depends on your field.

 

Yeah why bother clarifying a confusion.  I wasnt 'keen on explaining it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del the article did not say the difference was "minuscule,"  Here is what is did say (emphasis added):

It wasn't too long after Newton published his laws of motion that people noticed something was off about them. To be specific, they were off by the orbit of an entire planet. And they remained off until Einstein, and general relativity, explained why Mercury moves the way it does.

Taking your pilot statement seriously, airline pilots can travel using Newton's equations without any fear of missing the landing strip.  Indeed, Newton's equations are adequate for virtually all circumstances we are, personally, likely to encounter.  Perhaps, that is the point you are making and maybe I was being too technical.

However, if we ever have occasion to travel close to a massive object, like the Sun, then Newton's equations would be inadequate.

But this has little do with spirituality.  I also doubt Newton's or Einstein's law will matter much in the astral realm :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy there's some miscommunication but it doesn't matter. 

7 hours ago, Delano said:

. A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9miles long. Newtonian physicsalso predicted light would bend due to gravity, but only by half as much as Einstein’s theory predicted.

You are mistaken.

@Troy do you know what an arc seconds is or how to compute it. 

Its about 1 part in 84,000. What possible application can you conceive in every day life that would be relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

You must also appreciate that both what you know and believe do not have to be true. Indeed you've demonstrated that numerous times on this forum.

For example, you do not believe in man-made climate change or that there is only one one human race, despite both of these things being true.

I don't recall giving an opinion one way or the other on man-made climate change, but for the record I believe that climate change is BOTH in part caused by human beings as well as a natural cyclical occurance.

As far as what I know and believe not being true.

I'll accept that many of the things I BELIEVE may infact not be true.

I BELIEVE they speak Mandarin in China....because hundreds of people have told me this and I've read it in numerous publications.
But I haven't BEEN to China to confirm this for myself....so I don't KNOW it.


However when it comes to things I KNOW......the criteria I use is so strict that while it is POSSIBLE....it's highly unlikely.

You see......
I don't use drugs, I don't have mental illness, nor do I have a history of delusion or hallucinations.
So what are the chances that things I've either experienced or witnessed with my own sober senses may actually be false?

So experiencing a spiritual event lets me KNOW a spiritual realm exists.
However most of the details of that realm still sits in the BELIEF category.



Actually the fact that doctors can stimulate the brain in such a way to create the NDE experience we so often hear about; the feeling of happiness, the beckoning bright light, etc is one of the things that make me skeptical about those NDE accounts being other worldly

Now do you KNOW that doctors can stimulate this based on them doing it to you or seeing it first hand?

Or do you just BELIEVE that they can do it based on what you're read in a publication?

Because that's what I mean about separating BELIEF from KNOWLEDGE.

Besides......
Doctors may be able to produce light and feelings of happiness by altering chemicals and structures in the brain....but are doctors able to produce the 3 dimensional realer than real life interactions of these people with their long deceased family members and other loved ones that they often experience while having an NDE?

And if doctors are producing some of these NDE's in a laboratory, who's in the person's head producing them on the street or at the scene of the accident where they die?

See a true skeptic must be a skeptic on BOTH SIDES of the issue....lol.

You must be just as skeptical of these doctors who claim they can produce it as you are of those who claim to have had it!



 

Cynique

Matter is matter, is it not. Are you saying the physical world doesn't exist, that it is just a figment of the mind? And what "experience" are you talking about? Ones that tell you not to drive your car into ongoing traffic or you will be in a collision??

Along the lines of spirituality.....

Some would say...and I tend to BELIEVE....that the material world and so-called solid matter are just particles of energy vibrating at a much slower pace than those in the more spiritual realms and that's why they appear more solid.

We know even based on Western science that so called "solid" objects....once they are heated or their atoms/particles are excited and began to vibrate faster they being to change in structure from solid to liquid like metal.....or from liquid to gas and vapor like water.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing is believing. Perception is reality. And there is no objective truth.  If objectivity reality existed we would agree upon it. But your mind and my mind can't seem to agree/verify solid? objects.  What hope do you have of agreeing on the intangible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Troy said:

Taking your pilot statement seriously, airline pilots can travel using Newton's equations without any fear of missing the landing strip.  Indeed, Newton's equations are adequate for virtually all circumstances we are, personally, likely to encounter.  Perhaps, that is the point you are making and maybe I was being too technical.

However, if we ever have occasion to travel close to a massive object, like the Sun, then Newton's equations would be inadequate.

 The above would seem to be analogous to the concept of "race"; It is adequate to virtually all circumstances we are personally likely to encounter.  But when a "massive object" like technicality is added to the equation, then it is "inadequate."

"Practicality"  wins out over technicality in the ordinary world.

 

@Pioneer1Whatever form matter takes it is still different from  "abstract", which was the point I was trying to make.    Ideas, per se,  are not vibrating energy . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mental wavelengths.

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

 The above would seem to be analogous to the concept of "race"; It is adequate to virtually all circumstances we are personally likely to encounter.  But when a "massive object" like technicality is added to the equation, then it is "inadequate."

"Practicality"  wins out over technicality in the ordinary world.

 

@Pioneer1Whatever form matter takes it is still different from  "abstract", which was the point I was trying to make.    Ideas, per se,  are not vibrating energy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK @Delano , if you want to continue using the quantum world (photons with no rest mass) to advance your argument against a point I made about the macro world (the planet Mercury), have at it.  I made my point and you've ignored it.  I've explained why your point is completely different and it has fallen on deaf ears. .. maybe it is because you are an alpha male :-)

I hear what you saying @Cynique. But the differences between Newton's and Einstien's calculations in our everyday existence are indeed small enough to be ignored. This is different than the race argument I'm making.  To advance a position that there are multiple races when all the current science tells us there is only one is simply does not make sense, there is not an issue of degree.  

Now of course, the social aspects of difference "races" are real.  I just wish the language was not so sloppy over this issue.  Out sloppy language explains our beliefs and behavior.

@Pioneer1, I recall you responding to my question about climate change. In fact I reacted to your response here. However. I do not see your response now. 

Are far as perception being reality and seeing is believing.  Here is my argument against believing everything you see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  it would take to long to demonstate that your use of terms is not rigourous. 

So I'll attempt to clarify what I thought was an easy misunderstanding. 

The miniscule effect was mentioned in my post. Which I  am guessing you didn't read or comprehend thoroughly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

Ideas, per se, are not vibrating energy .

I beg to differ.
Ideas are thoughts....and thoughts are INDEED engery.

There are some who believe that thoughts and ideas actually are MATERIAL in their composition but in another "realm" or "plane" such as the spiritual or astral.

We know in our dreams...which are composed of thoughts......the objects of our perception seem almost as real and solid as objects of the waking reality whether its a food, a vehicle, or touching another human in the dream.



Troy


I recall you responding to my question about climate change. In fact I reacted to your response here. However. I do not see your response now.


???

Maaaan don't START that shit....lol.

If I had left you a response THEN....then it would still be there NOW.

You're so frustrated from your denial of race that now you're starting to HALLUCINATE.
Seeing words that never existed and thinking I posted them....LMAO.


But I hope you understand my point about having an EVEN skepticism concerning spiritual matters in general and the "near death experiences" in specific and how a lot of scientists who try to dismiss the idea can't be blindly trusted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!  I ain't saying you are removing posts but I clearly remember your response and my reaction to it.  Sure hallucination is a possible explanation... but If I had time I would check the server log ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

I HONESTLY did not post any type of response to any question about climate change until the previous one....lol.
I was too focused on the subject at hand to go of on other tangents.

Now I DO edit my posts after reading them in order to catch word mistakes or better make my points, but my edits are usually done within the first hour or two after the initial post.

But regardless as to whether I edited my response or not, what about my CURRENT (lol) answer to the question?


I don't let myself get suckered into these "hot" political questions where you're forced to be on one side or another?

-Do you believe climate change is natural OR man-made?

-Do you believe a gay lifestyle is environmental OR are they born that way?

-Do you believe in evolution OR creation?

In all of these questions and more, I've seen evidence that prove BOTH sides are correct to various degrees so to cancel out an entire side of the argument and take hold of just one staunch position make little sense to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps....

I can't say you're wrong.

But if ideas are NOT matter or mass....then what do you think the images in dreams and waking "flash backs" are composed of?

I know they are in the mind.

But what type of "substance" are those images, sounds, and even SMELLS that people who dream or have flash backs that are so vivid in the mind....what are they made of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
  • ab·stract1
     
    adjective
    synonyms: theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual;
    1. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:                                                                                              
       Abstract is from a Latin word meaning "pulled away, detached," and the basic idea is of something detached from physical, or concrete, reality.
      Memories and dreams are recalling events that existed in the physical world.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer the premise of your questions are flawed in that somethings are not either/or and more complex and nuanced than your questions suggest. But I'll answer them:

-Do you believe climate change is natural OR man-made?

Both, but there is substantial evidence that the man-man contribution is causing more changes than would be occurring otherwise--to our detriment.

-Do you believe a gay lifestyle is environmental OR are they born that way?

Both are contributing factors, but human sexuality is very complex.

-Do you believe in evolution OR creation?

Evolution. 


@Pioneer1 can you answer the same questions?   Also, I believe you about your response the missing/edited response.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Cynique

I see the definition up there....lol.
But it still doesn't answer the question I posed to you.


If thoughts are NOT matter then what are dreams and "flash backs" made of?

Science tells us that images are made of light.
What "light" is shining in one's brain to give us the images we have in dreams?

Science also tells us that what we smell when we smell something are very minute particles of the  matter before us.

But when someone who was traumatized by war or a bad accident has a flash back often times they not only SEE but can SMELL the gunpoweder or burning building or the environment they were in years ago.
The matter or concrete material they're smelling is no where around and it happened years ago....yet they're smelling SOMETHING.








Troy



@Pioneer1 can you answer the same questions?

Those questions weren't meant for you to answer.
They were rhetorical....examples of questions where there are truths to support BOTH sides of the argument.
That was my point about climate change.

But yes I can answer them:

Like you, climate change I believe is a combination of man made AND natural occurances.

Also like you I believe the gay lifestyle is a result of people who are indeed gay and decide to openly be who they are AND a culture that promotes the "metrosexual" male and "queer" lifestyle.

But I believe in BOTH creation and evolution.

Ofcourse things evolve and mutate with time BUT everything had to have a beginning or starting point somehere in time which means it had to be "created" or brought into existence from non-existence.



Notice the word BELIEVE in all of my responses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1  Who said thoughts are "matter"? I didn't. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference  between the territory of the mind, and the environment of  the physical world where vibrating energies have solidified. The answer to the questions  you posed should be obvious by the definitions  but, since you  apparently are not an abstract thinker they do not register with you.

My memories  are revived recollections of events that have already happened in the physical world and while I am recalling them they do not materialize  into a scene  that can be watched by an audience. They are not tangible. When different fragrances or aromas trigger flashbacks, my sense of smell does not magically transform what I have smelled into tangible entities or objects.

When someone imagines or theorizes about something, until it is energized into fruition in the physical world for all to perceive, it exists in the intangible limbo of the abstract realm.  

Proceeding on your argument, i could dream I won the lottery and wake up a rich woman, something that wouldn't happen because my abstract dream existed only in my mind. Or, while remembering my wedding day, I would be holding a bouquet  and standing next to my groom-to-be, something that would not be the case because my memories are the intangible remnants of the tangible past.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique that explains so much. 

For me everything is an idea theroy or subjective. I feel this helps with my mental fluidity. So i have difficulty with people who say they have an open mind or think critically. When they don't.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer creation and evolutions are mutally exclusive, but based upon your response I gather you believe in evolution.  There are people who believe man was created in his current form a few thousand years ago.

Of course this is what we believe, for we have no way of knowing.  We are trusting the people who tell us these things.

Also why are you belaboring the point on thoughts being matter? The brain is matter. The energy produced by the brain's activity, which includes our thoughts are not.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique


Who said thoughts are "matter"? I didn't. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between the territory of the mind, and the environment of the physical world where vibrating energies have solidified.

???

I'm not sure how I could refuse to acknowledg it when I'M the one who told YOU:

"Some would say...and I tend to BELIEVE....that the material world and so-called solid matter are just particles of energy vibrating at a much slower pace than those in the more spiritual realms and that's why they appear more solid."

I've BEEN known that matter is just vibrating forms of energy that have slowed down to a more solid state!

 

 

 

The answer to the questions you posed should be obvious by the definitions but, since you apparently are not an abstract thinker they do not register with you.

My memories are revived recollections of events that have already happened in the physical world and while I am recalling them they do not materialize into a scene that can be watched by an audience. They are not tangible. When different fragrances or aromas trigger flashbacks, my sense of smell does not magically transform what I have smelled into tangible entities or objects.

When someone imagines or theorizes about something, until it is energized into fruition in the physical world for all to perceive, it exists in the intangible limbo of the abstract realm.

But I wasn't talking about mere "memories".
I was talking about DREAMS and FLASH BACKS.....both of these events are much stronger than mere memories.

Unlike memories or even day dreams where the thoughts are more or less "abstract" as you say, in dreams you FEEL and HEAR and SEE.

You hear your friend calling you to come and play and see them and feel the wind on your face as you run toward them.

Clearly your senses are at work.
If thoughts are not material then what are the sensory nerves picking up that allows you to FEEL, HEAR, and SEE the "thoughts" in your dreams?


It's the same with flash backs.

When soldiers and trauma victims are having flash backs they SMELL and HEAR the environment they formerly experienced years ago.

You don't "smell" a mere thought or hear it.
Yet they say they can smell and hear the environment just like they were back in it.

What are they picking up on if thoughts are totally abstract with no material basis?




Proceeding on your argument, i could dream I won the lottery and wake up a rich woman, something that wouldn't happen because my abstract dream existed only in my mind. Or, while remembering my wedding day, I would be holding a bouquet and standing next to my groom-to-be, something that would not be the case because my memories are the intangible remnants of the tangible past.

I don't recall making an "argument".......
But perhaps in the dream world (realm of existence) if you won the lottery you WOULD be a rich woman!

When you make up in THIS world you wouldn't be, but back in a certain "dimension" of the dream world you WOULD be.

I've had many "mini-series" dreams where I would dream about something and a few weeks later do a continuation of the same dream as it played out further.

Who's to say that the dream world isn't some sort of alternate reality?




 

 

Troy

Also why are you belaboring the point on thoughts being matter? The brain is matter. The energy produced by the brain's activity, which includes our thoughts are not

We both agree that thoughts are energy.
But let's take it a step further........

Didn't both you and Delano agree with the E-MC2 theory of Einstein?

If energy is the same as accelerated mass/matter......then mass/matter must be slowed energy.
Thus....

THOUGHTS=ENERGY=MATTER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1Well, obviously you and I process things differently.  You cannot define what my subjective abstract experiences are, you can only verbalize your interpretation and cite other instances in order to try and make your point. 

Whatever. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cynique said:

@Pioneer1Well, obviously you and I process things differently.  You cannot define what my subjective abstract experiences are, you can only verbalize your interpretation and cite other instances in order to try and make your point. 

Whatever. 

   

Sounds about right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer, again the formula describes how much energy "has," it is not what matter "is."  Two bananas = $1, that does not mean bananas "are" dollars.  Get it?

I did not say thoughts are energy either.  Thoughts require energy to be generated and sensed by the brain, but again that is not what they are.  Wind powers a sailboat, but a sailboat is not wind. Right?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Delano said:

Sounds about right. 

You know.....
I have an opinion about this comment Del just made about Cynique's post to me.

But I'm gonna wait and check out other people's reactions (or lack there of) to it before I respond with my own thoughts.



 


Troy

Pioneer, again the formula describes how much energy "has," it is not what matter "is." Two bananas = $1, that does not mean bananas "are" dollars. Get it?


I'm not scientist but I believe your understanding of this equation is wrong.

E=MC2 doesn't mean energy simply HAS accelerated mass or vice versa.

In mathematics the equal sign (=) stands for the word "IS".

It means that energy IS accelerated mass.

Energy and matter....according to that formula....are the SAME but just in different forms.


 

I did not ay thoughts are energy either. Thoughts require energy, be generated and sensed by the brain and sensed, but again that is not what they are. Wind powers a sailboat, but a sailboat is not wind. Right?

OK.
I guess I misunderstood what you said then.

When you said,
"The energy produced by the brain's activity, which includes our thoughts are not"

I figured you were including thoughts with energy....not with "brain activity".
However......

IF you don't consider thoughts to be energy, and you certainly don't consider them matter...then what DO you think thoughts are?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what else to say @Pioneer1 Matter has energy.  It is not energy.  I'll let someone else try to explain it.  It took me 2 seconds to find this article written by a physicist, Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy. It is written in lay terms you may find it interesting.  This may then help you understand thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×