x

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm

That's not really accurate. I mostly skip everything you write, because I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice.
Once again you could not be more WRONG about me.

Either your memory is wrong now or what you were thinking back then was completely wrong.

Either way you have a very wrong and distorted view about me.
You used to use a different name, Ken. And under that name you wrote these words....
ken wrote:Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
So I don't feel the need to take anything back there.
You do not have to take anything back there.

You are just wrong in saying that I believed some thing. You seemed to have forgotten, or disbelieve, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, you are wrong there.

I also never said any thing about "historians" nor about that they "would value" any thing. So, you are wrong there on those two parts as well.

And, I certainly never mentioned nothing of the sort about "genius". So, you are wrong, once more, and again.

Therefore, you have a very wrong and distorted view about me. You have a very narrow and limited view of things, and this is because you are very closed.

Considering you have no intention of clarifying, and you just prefer to make up perceptions and believe them to be right and true, you will continue to keep being wrong about me. You do not have to take anything back. I certainly do not want you to do any thing at all. You can keep your distorted views of me for as long as you like.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
You wrote: "Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible." That's totally stupid, utter nonsense.
Is it?

Instead of hiding behind attempts at insults and ridicules, why do you not show how it is stupid and nonsense? Just saying something, does not make it so.

Tell us how exactly how both of those statements are wrong. To me, they are obviously true, and did not need clarifying, but I could be completely wrong.

If you are capable of showing how they are wrong, then do it. Otherwise the readers, in a public forum, are forming their own opinions.
Unless we are jointly addressing an audience of utter morons, they have all they needed to informed those opinions already.
So, are you completely and utterly incapable of showing how what I said is stupid and nonsense?

You have not shown any thing so far.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Likewise, you already pouted at me about the relationship between appetite and genetics being obvious, appetite is not less invisible than emotion.
You, once again, have misconstrued what I said and took it completely out of context.

The reason you do this is because you never clarify what I say. You, instead, just assume what I am saying, make up some conclusion about that (misinformation), and then believe what you have concluded is actually true.

You are just getting more and more wrong.

You are not at all open.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
You are a self basting idiot.
If you so believe, then that is what I must be.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
Now you can do another round of pissily complaining that I shouldn't accuse you of pissiness if you want. I might bite, but I might not bother.
You live totally in your own beliefs.

I have not even done, what you proposing here, a first time.
Yeah, bit of a pissy response, that.
Yeah, and from you not one shred of writing that refutes nor rejects what I say.

From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule in the hope that you look more superior.

You may be fooling yourself and some "others". But you can not fool EVERY one.

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:10 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:32 am
Age wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:17 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:59 am


If you can't get this bit, then you will never understand evolution and natural selection.
If you can not answer the question, then that, to some, would suggest that you are incapable of answering the question. To "others" it might suggest that you are even incapable of understanding the question.

To me, you obviously are incapable of understanding.

If evolution is the effect only, then what caused evolution AND when?

If you do any thing other than answer the actual question, then that shows what you are capable of and hints to what you are completely incapable of.
Evolution has always been the result of change.
Has it?

Can you explain how?

Where did you get the, and/or what, evidence for this view/belief?

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:32 am
It's pointless unless you can figure that out.
If you want me to figure some thing out, which you believe is absolutely true, then how about providing some evidence for your belief?
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:32 am
Ask yourself this. If you want to be able to say that evolution is a CAUSE. Then tell me how!
But I have never wanted to be able to say that evolution is a CAUSE. I have absolutely NO reason to say a ridiculous thing as that.

Why do you not answer plain and simple clarifying questions like: If evolution is the effect only, then what caused evolution AND when?

As I have been showing here: If you do any thing other than answer the actual question, then that shows what you are capable of and hints to what you are completely incapable of.

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: x

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:15 pm

The Woodster wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:14 am
Thanks for turning my post into a personal argument between both of you.
Enjoy yourselves!
Who are you referring to here exactly?

If one of them was me, then if I recall correctly, (i can not reference now because it was deleted) but it was one of your posts that said some thing along the lines of that you do not want to discuss with me anymore.

And, why did you delete your posts?

Were the errors in your posts so large and/or common that it was just better to delete them all? I still had many other "issues" to clarify with you. Or, did you delete your posts here for some other reason/s?

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:18 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:15 pm
Age wrote:
If evolution is the effect only then what caused evolution AND when ?
Evolution is usually treated as biological but it actually applies to all phenomena equally so
And because the Universe is in a constant state of evolution then there can be no first cause
Try discussing that with those who believe otherwise.

Some people actually believe that evolution has always been the result of change.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3145
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:35 pm

Age wrote:
Some people actually believe that evolution has always been the result of change
What some people actually believe is not remotely important only what actually is

Evolution in all of its forms [ physical / chemical / biological ] is quite simply eternal transition
Nothing within the Universe is ever truly static for there is always change occurring at all levels

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:56 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:35 pm
Age wrote:
Some people actually believe that evolution has always been the result of change
What some people actually believe is not remotely important only what actually is

Evolution in all of its forms [ physical / chemical / biological ] is quite simply eternal transition
Nothing within the Universe is ever truly static for there is always change occurring at all levels
Were you aware that is just about exactly how I have seen things also?

There is no 'selecting' in evolution, and, evolution is neither the effect nor the cause of change. To me, evolution is, more or less, just change, itself. The process of change is, to me, evolution.

As all "things" change they adapt to fit the new form. [Survival of the fittest].

Essentially the Universe, Itself, is in constant-change. Forming a newer Self (of Its Self) all the time.

The meaning of 'Life', to me, is just living, being alive.

The living Universe is always changing, occurring at all levels, and at the conscious level Consciousness, It Self, through the physical, is always evolving, or changing, just like the physical is, and always becoming more aware of Its Self. This happens until thee True Self is known, or Who/what am "I'? is answered correctly. To 'know Thy Self' is, to me, one purpose of 'Life'.
Last edited by Age on Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:57 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:30 pm


How do you know?

Do you have some access to 'the truth' that "others" do not?
Use your brain.
Using the brain only is the reason why that distorted thinking exists.
Duh

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:57 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:01 pm

Use your brain.
Using the brain only is the reason why that distorted thinking exists.
Duh
Is that all you can say?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Sculptor » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:04 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:00 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:57 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:39 pm


Using the brain only is the reason why that distorted thinking exists.
Duh
Is that all you can say?
no. It's all you deserve

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:07 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:04 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:00 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:57 pm


Duh
Is that all you can say?
no. It's all you deserve
But I do not deserve any thing, at all.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 am


Once again you could not be more WRONG about me.

Either your memory is wrong now or what you were thinking back then was completely wrong.

Either way you have a very wrong and distorted view about me.
You used to use a different name, Ken. And under that name you wrote these words....
ken wrote:Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
So I don't feel the need to take anything back there.
You do not have to take anything back there.

You are just wrong in saying that I believed some thing. You seemed to have forgotten, or disbelieve, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, you are wrong there.

I also never said any thing about "historians" nor about that they "would value" any thing. So, you are wrong there on those two parts as well.

And, I certainly never mentioned nothing of the sort about "genius". So, you are wrong, once more, and again.

Therefore, you have a very wrong and distorted view about me. You have a very narrow and limited view of things, and this is because you are very closed.
I was correct in every important detail, the pettiness of your objections serves as proof.

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm
From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule in the hope that you look more superior.
That is a stement of belief. You don't believe anything, so you must withdraw it.

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm

You used to use a different name, Ken. And under that name you wrote these words....

So I don't feel the need to take anything back there.
You do not have to take anything back there.

You are just wrong in saying that I believed some thing. You seemed to have forgotten, or disbelieve, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, you are wrong there.

I also never said any thing about "historians" nor about that they "would value" any thing. So, you are wrong there on those two parts as well.

And, I certainly never mentioned nothing of the sort about "genius". So, you are wrong, once more, and again.

Therefore, you have a very wrong and distorted view about me. You have a very narrow and limited view of things, and this is because you are very closed.
I was correct in every important detail, the pettiness of your objections serves as proof.
Trying to deflect away, from the fact that you were so wrong about me, by saying the second part of your sentence speaks for itself.

You appear to being more petty yourself by talking about pettiness, yourself.

Why not look at the real issue here, which is you wrote; I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice. and what you call "important detail" is obviously TOTALLY WRONG. As I pointed you used words that completely twisted and distorted what I actually said and wrote.

The reason you twisted the truth around is because you hold beliefs, in that which is not even true.

When, and if, you stop believing and stop being closed, then you will start seeing and speaking the truth of things.

Saying that you were correct in every important detail could not be further from the truth.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm
From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule in the hope that you look more superior.
That is a stement of belief. You don't believe anything, so you must withdraw it.
You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

The words 'seem to get' infers and means that there is NO belief at all. What 'appears to happening' or what we 'seem to be getting' means that it may in fact not be the case nor truth at all. 'It' is open for verification, and therefore what I said is obviously not a belief at all.

Whereas your statement; 'That is a belief statement', is a belief, itself, from which you are incapable of, and thus closed off, from verifying what the actual truth is.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am

Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm


You do not have to take anything back there.

You are just wrong in saying that I believed some thing. You seemed to have forgotten, or disbelieve, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, you are wrong there.

I also never said any thing about "historians" nor about that they "would value" any thing. So, you are wrong there on those two parts as well.

And, I certainly never mentioned nothing of the sort about "genius". So, you are wrong, once more, and again.

Therefore, you have a very wrong and distorted view about me. You have a very narrow and limited view of things, and this is because you are very closed.
I was correct in every important detail, the pettiness of your objections serves as proof.
Trying to deflect away, from the fact that you were so wrong about me, by saying the second part of your sentence speaks for itself.

You appear to being more petty yourself by talking about pettiness, yourself.

Why not look at the real issue here, which is you wrote; I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice. and what you call "important detail" is obviously TOTALLY WRONG. As I pointed you used words that completely twisted and distorted what I actually said and wrote.

The reason you twisted the truth around is because you hold beliefs, in that which is not even true.

When, and if, you stop believing and stop being closed, then you will start seeing and speaking the truth of things.

Saying that you were correct in every important detail could not be further from the truth.
So... instead of historians, it will actually just be "future generations" reviewing your work here.... out of historical interest.... but you didn't use the word "historians" so you are claiming that as an important distinction, which it is not.
And perhaps you actually believe that you are not considering yourself a genius, but in that belief you are mistaken. You did claim that future generations would return to read this forum because of whaat you wrote here and how it chnaged their lives. It is not unfair to observe that this looks very much like a claim of genius. It certainly isn't a very good expression of humility.

You may choose to write TOTALLY WRONG in all caps, but you are blatantly fooling yourself.
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:04 pm
From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule in the hope that you look more superior.
That is a stement of belief. You don't believe anything, so you must withdraw it.
You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

The words 'seem to get' infers and means that there is NO belief at all. What 'appears to happening' or what we 'seem to be getting' means that it may in fact not be the case nor truth at all. 'It' is open for verification, and therefore what I said is obviously not a belief at all.

Whereas your statement; 'That is a belief statement', is a belief, itself, from which you are incapable of, and thus closed off, from verifying what the actual truth is.
The words 'seem to get' absoluely don't indicate or imply, let alone mean, an absence of belief.
All belief is predicated on the possibility of mistake, that is what distinguishes claims of belief from claims of knowledge.
You may or may not belive that is true, but you are mistaken if you disbelieve me though.

Your silly shit about not having any belief at all is just stupid, I have no idea why you are so determined to cling to it, but it is a belief that you hold in error, and self evidently so at that.

Age
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by Age » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:52 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:50 pm

I was correct in every important detail, the pettiness of your objections serves as proof.
Trying to deflect away, from the fact that you were so wrong about me, by saying the second part of your sentence speaks for itself.

You appear to being more petty yourself by talking about pettiness, yourself.

Why not look at the real issue here, which is you wrote; I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice. and what you call "important detail" is obviously TOTALLY WRONG. As I pointed you used words that completely twisted and distorted what I actually said and wrote.

The reason you twisted the truth around is because you hold beliefs, in that which is not even true.

When, and if, you stop believing and stop being closed, then you will start seeing and speaking the truth of things.

Saying that you were correct in every important detail could not be further from the truth.
So... instead of historians, it will actually just be "future generations" reviewing your work here.... out of historical interest....
You are now getting somewhat closer.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
but you didn't use the word "historians" so you are claiming that as an important distinction, which it is not.
Did I claim that as an important distinction? Or, is this just yet another assumption of yours, which you may or may not be believing is true?

By the way, I am not, and have never, been claiming that as an important distinction. If I recall correctly it was you who talked about importance here, and in relation to detail. It was you who talked about how you "were correct in EVERY important detail", right?

The truthfulness of this obvious, which can be clearly seen in these writings.

In fact it could be argued that you were wrong in all if the 'important detail' parts.

I did after all say, Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
And perhaps you actually believe that you are not considering yourself a genius, but in that belief you are mistaken.
You are so wrongly mistaken this is getting beyond a joke now. How many times do you have be told what that I neither believe not disbelieve any thing before you accept it? If you could prove me wrong, then you would have by now.
You did claim that future generations would return to read this forum because of whaat you wrote here and how it chnaged their lives.
I never claimed any such thing. You just assume and believe that.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
It is not unfair to observe that this looks very much like a claim of genius.
You assume some thing, then believe it is true, and then conclude that it is not unfair to observe that what you, yourself, assume and believe is true, looks very much like the case.

Assuming and believing can really distort in more ways than I had previously realised.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
It certainly isn't a very good expression of humility.
This based on some thing that has not even yet been verified, and based only on what is assumed and/or believed to be true, which obviously could be totally wrong.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
You may choose to write TOTALLY WRONG in all caps, but you are blatantly fooling yourself.
Okay. So, without any actual evidence you have arrived at and concluded this.

Besides your assumptions and beliefs do you have any actual evidence?

If yes, then I suggest instead of just putting your own assumptions and/or beliefs forward, as though they are actual proof and evidence, you just put forward actual evidence and proof instead. That is what will help your stance.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:13 am


You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

The words 'seem to get' infers and means that there is NO belief at all. What 'appears to happening' or what we 'seem to be getting' means that it may in fact not be the case nor truth at all. 'It' is open for verification, and therefore what I said is obviously not a belief at all.

Whereas your statement; 'That is a belief statement', is a belief, itself, from which you are incapable of, and thus closed off, from verifying what the actual truth is.
The words 'seem to get' absoluely don't indicate or imply, let alone mean, an absence of belief.
I was obviously correct in that; You really do not understand me nor my language at all.

To me, the words 'From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule. .." does infer and mean there is NO belief. Those words literally mean, to me, that, to me, this is just what "seems" to be the case, and is therefore not necessarily the case at all.

Whereas, the words 'From you, all we get is continual attempts at ridicule ...', to me, is absolutely a belief statement.

If you can not see nor understand the difference in the language between the two, then the subtlety of it is being completely missed.

One is a statement expressed as a truth, without an ability to be any thing else, and without evidence is therefore a belief. The other is a statement expressing just what APPERS to be the case, which obviously is open to being completely wrong as well as open to being completely right, and anywhere in between.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
All belief is predicated on the possibility of mistake, that is what distinguishes claims of belief from claims of knowledge.
So are you saying you believe things that could in fact be totally wrong?

If no, then what are you saying?
If that is what you are saying, then why would you do such a thing as that?

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
You may or may not belive that is true, but you are mistaken if you disbelieve me though.
Can youseriously not fathom being completely open? This happens when one is neither believing nor disbelieving any thing.

I neither believe not disbelieve any thing. Comprehend?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:25 am
Your silly shit about not having any belief at all is just stupid, I have no idea why you are so determined to cling to it, but it is a belief that you hold in error, and self evidently so at that.
What is this "belief" that you believe I am supposedly holding on to?

Once again all you are doing is sproutingbyour own beliefs, as though they are absolutely 100% true and right.

Once again I suggest that if you want to come across as though you know what you are talking about, then provide actual evidence and proof instead of just your own assumptions and beliefs.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life - Original New Theory (Prt 1)

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:52 pm
I did after all say, Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
Yes you did. And given why I mentioned it in the first place, that's all that is needed on that topic.
I am no longer interested in your absurd opinion on how the absurd thing you wrote should be understood in absurd terms.
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:52 pm
I was obviously correct in that; You really do not understand me nor my language at all.
That line brings us to a crossroads where I must decide whether to expend actual significant effort on you. I've weighed up the chances of you understanding Wittgenstein's PLA and I can't see any reason to bother trying to explain it to you.

I think we have officially reached the point where I am not finding this interesting enough to do any more.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests