2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 02:23 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Umm, no. You were redefining a definition which was already defined as the ability to do anything, or everything. If the ability to do ANYTHING(EVERYTHING) is at the least bit accurate, It should include self-contradictory things as well.

This is our definition: Omnipotence: The ability to do anything; the ability to do everything.

This is yours: the ability to do anything(Except self contradicting things); the ability to do everything( Except self contradicting things)

You exclude the self contradicting because it is your view that everything is only "That which can be done." While we see everything as " an inclusion of ALL things.

You may have "solved" the Rock-paradox by simply twisting the term, but you have already lost, and we have lost as well. Let me explain. your version of omnipotence is not ours, nor does it fit our criteria for omnipotence so it, by our definition(which we believe to be the most accurately implied), it is not omnipotence, and we see your attempt at "expanding" on the word as a failure of the God paradox, and thus you have given up "Omnipotence."( by our definition of the word.)

Now, since you clearly think your definition is right, in your mind, you have succeed in thwarting the God-Rock Paradox, which is why it can't be an argument if it just is semantics between the parties. You have (tried) to redefine "Omnipotence" to something that fits into the God-Rock Paradox, but we see what you are doing and are against you changing, or "Expanding( whichever you prefer)on, the word itself.

Some of us just see it as a "lets change the word" argument, and some of us think that is very cheap and underhanded.

That's all I am saying about that.

What does it mean to "Change a definition"?

As far as I understand, it means to either add or take away from the definition.
From what I can see, saying "Everything includes things we made up" is adding to the definition.
And when I say "Everything does not include the things you're making up" is taking away from the definition.
Either way, if the definition is not clear on what it means through elaboration - then both parties are changing the definition.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 02:42 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Most of the distaste for me on this forum doesn't seem to stem from any dishonesty on my part, but more from the general fact that I simply concluded with God's existence.
Before I had revealed that I was a Theist, I was well on my way to being friends with almost all of you. Said the words "I believe God exists" and the whole environment changed dramatically.
I can tell quite adamantly from this kind of behavior that so many of you automatically brand the person that believes in Gods existence with "delusional".

I didn't know of your existence until I discovered your posts about Jesus Christ's resurrection.

Because a belief in a deity is delusional.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I can also tell from your statement "Your approach sucks" that my conclusion deters how you view me. I can tell because there are so many Atheists on here that I watch you converse with that have a much worse approach than myself, and you don't have this same thing to say about them.

Most of the atheists on here do not avoid questions that pose a problem to their argument. But the fact that you are trying to lump this issue into a black and white category is ridiculous. There are idiot atheists, yes, but to be a theist presents a fundamental fallacy in its entirety.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Why is this a bad thing?
Many others that bombard your forum, don't they behave in a more barbaric or arrogant way?
Would you rather I act like them and pretend to have an answer? No matter what approach I take, you're unsatisfied until I drop my belief in God, aren't you? That just makes me not want to take you seriously at all.

That is irrelevant. This debate is not about what other theists do. This debate is about you specifically.

No, I don't care about your belief in God. You are already desperate enough to hang on to what possibility there exists for such a delusion, I need not break the fragility. I find that the most challenging questions, the ones that you avoid, are the 'whys' and the 'hows'. How can your position be logical if you cannot even explain the 'whys' and the 'hows', let alone the 'ifs' and the actual existence of said deity.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It doesn't matter how you slice it, both parties can be viewed as trying to redefine Omnipotence.
I was trying to take a more logical stance in saying that 'everything' does not necessarily include self-contradicting state of affairs.
The other side was trying to say that it does, and that I was redefining the word.
How can you say that you were not also redefining the word, but only say that I was? Bias is how, and you have plenty of it towards someone like me. And all I did was believe in God.

Not at all. This is not a, "We're all in the wrong, right?" sort of spiele. Again, I have already proven your Thomas Aquinas logic wrong. That is why professional theologians have an issue with omnipotence.

I tend not to judge deists. They are often much more agreeable than most theists. A belief in God does not exactly cause me suspicion or hostility, but rather a curiosity. But you are not a deist. You attempt to justify attributes given to God by Christian theism. This, in itself, is ridiculous.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The important questions are the one that deserve more attention and detail. The strong opposition you might be talking about is more like a biased attack at my worldview. So far, I've seen stronger opposition on general debate websites.
To me, a strong opposition is not someone being witty and putting their words together to sound superior. A strong opposition is a proposition that strongly questions the opposers viewpoint to an almost definite degree that has been given great attention and detail in order to justly cover every point raised.
The approach of yourself is about like your responses here; Short and bias-driven.

Before we continue with your incessant whining, I'd like to ask you how one launches an unbiased attack, debates in an unbiased fashion, or even addresses people in an unbiased way. How does one do that?

I agree. Eloquence is not an accurate measure to someone's intelligence. So why do you assume my responses are weak because they are short? You take several paragraphs to refute such short posts, I would think that they matter a great deal, despite their length.

Yes, I also agree with that. Where you and I differ is this: You run away, I don't like that.


(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Really? Have you ever done that before? Ended a debate with the other person undoubtedly seeing things from your viewpoint and thereby changing their minds while you stand without any questions whatsoever?
If I don't finish a debate, it's usually because I've been shown information that I didn't have previous knowledge of that perhaps challenges my worldview. That usually is a good indication that I need to do more research, not continue debating about it. That would cause someone to be fake and throw a bunch of lies around. That's childish and irresponsible.

Where did I say it is possible to realign someone's view with a debate? I said let the debate run its course. Many times, I simply agree to disagree with the opposition. My goal, the intent in my debates is not to necessarily convince my opponent, but to rather allow people who read said debates to use said arguments on their own. If I convince the person I am debating with, that is just a perk.

One must conduct the research, come back, and present the information one gathered to advance one's point (or to admit that one is wrong). You seem to have an issue with the "coming back" part.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  What you see as someone "crumbling" may actually be an appropriate response in some cases. You seem to see it as a weakness when I say I don't know what you're talking about and will do some research at the chance I get before I go further.
And what you think is me running away, is more like my inability to deal with people that claim to follow the laws of logic, and then don't use it themselves. A conversation, after that point, then becomes useless.

No, I applaud people who conduct research and come back bearing new information for the debate.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Is this true? So what's your logic? Either don't be a skeptic of my own viewpoint and stay a Theist delusionally, or just become an Atheist at the first sign of doubt?
You're seriously hard to talk to Dodgy

Agnosticism is generally the position many people take. You are making the positive claim when saying you are a theist. There is no evidence to suggest your claim is accurate or correct; therefore, supporting it is delusional.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  See how ridiculously biased you can be? It's as if it is an absolute fact that as long as I believe God exists or even that his existence is more probable then, by your statement, I can never obtain the truth. I believe this is the bias that keeps people from ever questioning their own belief in order to screen out the bad ideas and learn better ones.

When you begin to question your own beliefs, you either remain a theist or you renounce your faith. If you remain a theist, you have not obtained the reality of the situation. If you have been persuaded, you are no longer a theist. You cannot be a theist, and maintain a logical position about the subject.

(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Hows that? I need education to find legitimate flaws. I need research and better understanding. If something is illegitimate, it will never be seen as legitimate if I'm being unbiased.
Do you ever think that you are possibly wrong? I do, all the time. If you don't - you are automatically subject to bias.
I talk about bias a lot, I know. But that's because it's what causes people to be irrational and to keep people from getting closer to the truth about life.
I think bias is a major problem with just about everyone.

So tell me, my friend, how are you unbiased? This concept is new to me. You claim you are unbiased, but that is like claiming the Earth is flat.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logica Humano's post
30-09-2012, 02:42 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 02:15 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(30-09-2012 02:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are two, at least, definitions of "nothing".

Krauss has demonstrated that in this universe there is no such thing. What there may be apert from this universe, is not known yet.

The Philosphical discussion of nothingness is more than just about 2 definitions.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/ . It may just be all nonsence, which was conceptually based in the past, on a cognitive percetion of emtpy, space, (which we now know is not really empty). Until anyone proves to me, or provides 1 reason that there really is "nothingness" in Reality, it's dismissed, as far as I'm concerned. It's a cognitive fiction. Where did the idea of "nothingness" come from, in the first place ? (It's not real).

You're quite right about that. A literal nothing is something that, if it really is nothing, would have to be outside of space and time since the entirety of space is all something in one regard or another.

As far as what is outside space, I don't know if we will ever know what is out there, but the ideas of multi-verses and so on can only be taken as theories. Some take them as factual, and I can't stand that.
Whatever is outside of space and time is currently unknown and could actually fit the definition of a literal nothing for all we know.
Smile

It could also be literally, anything else. I prefer just to use the word "unknown".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 02:23 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
Quote:It doesn't matter how you slice it, both parties can be viewed as trying to redefine Omnipotence.

Umm, no. You were redefining a definition which was already defined as the ability to do anything, or everything. If the ability to do ANYTHING(EVERYTHING) is at the least bit accurate, It should include self-contradictory things as well.

This is our definition: Omnipotence: The ability to do anything; the ability to do everything.

This is yours: the ability to do anything(Except self contradicting things); the ability to do everything( Except self contradicting things)

You exclude the self contradicting because it is your view that everything is only "That which can be done." While we see everything as " an inclusion of ALL things.

You may have "solved" the Rock-paradox by simply twisting the term, but you have already lost, and we have lost as well. Let me explain. your version of omnipotence is not ours, nor does it fit our criteria for omnipotence so it, by our definition(which we believe to be the most accurately implied), it is not omnipotence, and we see your attempt at "expanding" on the word as a failure of the God paradox, and thus you have given up "Omnipotence."( by our definition of the word.)

Now, since you clearly think your definition is right, in your mind, you have succeed in thwarting the God-Rock Paradox, which is why it can't be an argument if it just is semantics between the parties. You have (tried) to redefine "Omnipotence" to something that fits into the God-Rock Paradox, but we see what you are doing and are against you changing, or "Expanding( whichever you prefer)on, the word itself.

Some of us just see it as a "lets change the word" argument, and some of us think that is very cheap and underhanded.

That's all I am saying about that.

The issue is that an entirely new problem is presented when arguing with Aquinas' logic.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2012 06:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(29-09-2012 09:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  But I noticed Kalam in there. I hate that guy, yet seeing him again introduced another flaw in said concept. If we're talking law of cause and effect here, we are more appropriately derivative of the first effect, and said effect is more likely to be resultant not of the first cause, but of the last cause. That's what Penrose is going on about with his cyclic universe hypothesis. The last cause is having essentially infinite distance between photons and a breakdown of locality, setting the stage for a quantum singularity. And perhaps all this fine-tuning nonsense is artifact differing from the entropic count of this universe.

So since this is important, I'm going to try to re-state it, another way.

There are no reasons given in Kalam for why the cause *has* to be the First Cause. Kalam is not First Cause. It's "proximate" cause. There is no reason given, why the cause of this universe, could not have been caused by something else, given in Kalam, especially given that the creator is, (supposedly), omnipotent.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2012, 03:04 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 03:12 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(30-09-2012 01:43 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It doesn't matter how you slice it, both parties can be viewed as trying to redefine Omnipotence.

Not exactly. One side sees these "omni" terms as divine characteristics, the other side sees them as essentially meaningless. I go with meaningless in this context. One time I had a "omnidirectional joystick," but what it really meant was "eight way." I mean, if it was "omni" like the theist implies, I should have been able to direct my Mario to jump off of the screen and do my laundry.

So what happens when these concepts are used is that one side tries to simulate the experience of the other side, and all of these Omnis" run aground of one logical paradox or another. Knowing the meaninglessness of the term indicates that any atheist willing to debate on such matters is practicing a measure of intellectual dishonesty, which is internally justified by considering that the theist is practicing more by trying to justify an external reality to such concepts.

Especially poignant when such concepts lead to restrictions in human expression.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Wow, got busy on here over the weekend.

Well, I'll try to get to the posts later, hopefully today sometime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2012 12:44 PM by caffeinesoul.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Memories of services at my old church have come back to me. *Shudder*
I've forgotten a lot of details in regards to the parable. Regardless, I still consider this a faulty analogy.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Without getting into the Genesis set up (thus detracting from our original discussion here) I will say that the set-up are NOT meant to be parallels. Genesis is it’s own, and the Parable is AFTER the fall – dealing with CURRENT times. So that is part of the issue, they are separate and not comparable in that regard.

If the analogy leaves out details like the set-up that allowed us to sin in the first place, I cannot consider the parable to be anything but a misrepresentation.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Correct the younger son doesn’t accurately rep. human kind as a whole, as he is meant ONLY to represent a certain GROUP of human kind. Certainly, he isn’t meant to rep. Adam and Eve – again the parable is dealing with CURRENT time (as it was then, and still is) - that is AFTER the fall. So, yes, to an extent the PS doesn’t rep. human-kind (in whole) because he’s only to rep. human-kind IN PART.

Adam and Eve are included in the period of time known as "after the fall", so I don't see how they're irrelevant.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  The father isn’t to represent the whole 3-in-1. But a certain nature of God (which I will get into).

Why only a certain nature - why not all of God? Why can't this character represent all aspects of God? Or rather, why doesn't he? The OT side of God isn't irrelevant. The punishing side of God isn't irrelevant. It's all relevant, so why doesn't this character represent all aspects of God?

Misrepresentation.

If I were to tell someone that I am always a calm, friendly guy who enjoys video-games, yet keep from them the fact that when I play video-games I become irritable and abusive, I would be misrepresenting myself by saying I'm always calm and friendly. For me to accurately represent myself, I'd need to detail all aspects of my personality, not just one part. This analogy also applies to the next thing I'm going to address.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Remember, this is a story that Jesus is telling to every day, downtrodden, run of the mill, salt of the earth people – so, it’s purpose is to pack as much punch as simply as possible. So the father NOT being a COMPLETE representation of God is okay, because the purpose of the father is to HIGHLIGHT the nature of God.

"every day, downtrodden, run of the mill, salt of the earth people" Laughat

To me, that's a polite way of saying "dumb people". People who were too low in the social hierarchy to get an education. The idea of a "simplified" (vague and all too general) analogy is indicative of misrepresentation. An analogy for the positions of God and sinners is, to me, something that can only warrant a complex explanation that takes into account the actions of God and man before the fall (which is only the first few chapters of Genesis - why such a small portion of the Bible would be ignored is curious, no?).

This is analogous of a scientist telling someone that "we evolved from monkeys" so that us salt-of-the-earth people could 'understand'. Only, in order to understand what the scientist means by that, we'd need an academic who's studied evolution and can explain to us that by "evolution", the scientist means a slow process of change over time via mutations in our DNA. They'd also need to explain that we didn't really evolve "from" monkeys, rather that we share a common ancestor with apes. They'd then need to explain why apes and monkeys are different, by which point the analogy is shown to be completely flawed; thus the scientist who gave the analogy has explained nothing, but misrepresented everything.

Oh, and before some idiot atheist jumps me for using evolution in my analogy, tell me, when was the last time you saw a credible (actual) scientist say "we evolved from monkeys"?

I personally find it quite condescending that such a simplified analogy would be used to explain such complex things. The condescension is only amplified by the God-getting-down-to-our-level-to-beg-us thing. As if humans all squalor in the dirt, helpless. If that were the case, what about the civilizations that existed on earth, to the complete ignorance of the West and Middle-East? The Japanese got along quite well without the Abrahamic God, for instance.

There are other things that are designed to pack punch for the salt-of-the-earth people; those things are tabloid head-lines. Catch my drift?


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  There are actually four characters in this story, however, only three are spoken of.

1. the father (God)
2. the younger son (sinners, etc)
3. the older son (the religious leaders)
4. society at large – setting (religious rules of the day)

Out of interest, if there is a fourth character that isn't explicitly mentioned in the parable, how are the dumb people (by which I mean, the "every day, downtrodden, run of the mill, salt of the earth" people) supposed to get such a subtle detail that requires apologists to find and explain? Did Jesus fail in his intention of providing an insightful and punchy parable?


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Again, the youngest son is NOT meant to represent man-kind as a whole, but as a part – sinners, or those who have been outcast, deemed “not worthy”, or believe themselves to be as such. And us – for those who fall into those “categories.”

So wait, when you say "us" - do you mean the son represents a part of all human-kind? Or a part of some of human-kind? Because, to me, "us" sounds like you mean everyone (since you're "saved" and I'm not), whereas earlier you said: "he is meant ONLY to represent a certain GROUP of human kind."


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  The eldest son, represents those who believe themselves righteous and holy and blameless, etc. (of which I’m sure you agree we still see this segment of Christianity today)

Tell me about it. I was watching a documentary by Louis Theroux last night (Behind Bars), and there was a segment in which Louis went into the prison yard to talk with some convicts. There were to guys who confessed to the crime of "allowing Satan to take control of their bodies", or some nonsense like that. You find out a few minutes later that it was highly likely that they were paedophiles, but wouldn't take responsibility for it.

Cretins.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Society at large represents the religious and cultural rules of the day. It’s the setting and backdrop. It’s not OVERTLY stated in the parable, because it’s a known factor at that time. Jesus is telling the story in THAT TIME, during THAT culture. (important point to remember – it doesn’t change the story, but highlights it even better)

If it doesn't change anything, why is it worth pointing out? The message should be equally relevant and highlight-able, no matter the era in which it's told, no? If we need to contextualise moral teachings... well...


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  Dad doesn’t care what the son did, where he’s been, how much – if any of the money he has left (which is clearly none) – all Dad cares is that his son has RETURNED.

Out of interest, consider this:

The son takes his father's money and runs off with it, but instead of living riotously, he invests the money in the poor in order to help them build better homes and attain easier access to vital resources. His father wouldn't care? That wouldn't mean anything? Well, perhaps if the son came back. But what if the son didn't come back? What if the son never returned, but helped people anyway?

Well, he'd be condemned to Hell, wouldn't he? A place that hasn't really been mentioned at all in this analogy. You may argue that Hell is the place away from God, but how does that apply to the real world... or even the analogy? It's not like the prodigal son died, and then returned to his father. It's not like I, in my sinful disbelief, am typing up this response to you from the depths of a sulfurous lake. Damnation comes after life. Damnation is eternal. Once more, this is a misrepresentation.

I also think it's incredibly contrived that the son spends riotously in the parable - as if that was the only way he could or would spend it, when away from his father.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  THAT is the nature of God that Jesus is highlighting in the parable. God DOESN”T CARE about your sins, what you did, didn’t do, where you were, etc. He cares that you RETURNED. And upon your return he will rejoice as such of the father did in the parable. THAT”S how much God loves us.

God loves us so much that even if I do good, He doesn't care and will condemn me to Hell. Is this where the argument that humans can't do good without God comes in? Well, that's demonstrably bullshit. Tbh, I find more reasons to do good (which, to me, includes speaking out against religions), than I find reasons to care about some angels having a party over me.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  All he had to do was return home. No coercion (as we saw the father GAVE the son what he wanted).

Coercion is evident. We know this because of the drought that convinced the prodigal son to return - the drought was the coercion. It wouldn't have been coercion if the prodigal son had never experienced a drought. But he did, due to the way God set things up. Had the son never left his father, would he have experienced a drought? No, because the drought took place in another land, far away from the father.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  As God will do for us. If we wish to be apart from him, he will grant us that. No blackmail, the father didn’t say “I’ll forgive you if….” Or to the oldest say, “you better join the party or else….”

That's explicit blackmail, I said implicit. Implicit blackmail goes hand-in-hand with coercion. Say the prodigal son missed his brother while he was off spending on himself/others, yet couldn't bring himself to want to return to his father? The scenario is similar to that of a hostage situation, where, unless the son returns to the father, the son will never be able to see his brother again in the after-life. It's not said out-right, no: it's implicit. This goes back to the prodigal son being a misrepresentation of people - his character doesn't pay attention to any of the complexities of human-kind.


(27-09-2012 05:08 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  As for the societal aspect, God will humble himself to OUR level to reach us, to get to us, to beg us…however, before you think this is a sign of weakness upon his part, it does the opposite and highlights his strength. Because one HAS power, does not mean one MUST use it at all times. (we see this with parents and children all the time, parents humbling themselves to their child’s level to benefit the child – are they less powerful? of course not.)

I would argue that if you need to beg your kids to do things, you've failed as a parent. Furthermore, if your children are grown adults, you don't get to tell them what to do or believe - they're not your peons. Begging them to believe as you do is insulting.

I don't like the comparison between children and grown adults, either. I don't see many children with Large Hadron Colliders. I don't see many children building robots and then launching them to the surface of Mars. It reminds me of that stupid picture that's shared by theists on Facebook who think that embryos are comparable to thinking human beings. Ugh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes caffeinesoul's post
01-10-2012, 09:42 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Derp, double-posted when under the impression that I was editing, apologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 09:47 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Well said CS! Smile

Anything worth saying is worth saying twice too Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: