So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:34 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:21 am


The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist.
Your response is getting sillier.

If you [empirical] has a young son and your son stated 'you-e are my mother' do you shut him up and tell your son, there is no-you and no-me and no-mother?

If your son complained he has a problem with bullying in school [in reality], you would tell him,

"The 'you' that thinks there is a real problem in reality does not exist."

Are you unmarried and stay alone?
But all you are doing is identifying with the story of I....I'm not talking about the fictional story of I

I'm talking about the infinite I in which the fictional I is but an appearance of.
Again you are shifty, confused and mess the terms.
The empirical you [physical living person and all empirical actions] is factual and not fictional.
Note the above dictionary meaning.
It is obvious you are trying to be deceptive here.

You have to retract your claim 'the fictional story of I [empirical]'
The normal basis of the empirical "I" is based on empirical facts that can be proven.
If I [empirical] say, 'I am eating an apple' that can be easily proven.

Now,
the infinite-I that you claimed as real is actually fictional [as defined above] because there are no facts to support your claim.
If you claim you have first person subjective experience of 'no-me' that could be due to an temporal epilepsy, other mental problems or other reasons as claimed by so many others who have been cured with medicines, etc.

The truth is,
the infinite-I [unprovable] is a fictional idea of the empirical-I [verifiable].
Such a situation arise due to some psychological impulses arising from an existential crisis.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am

You have to retract your claim 'the fictional story of I [empirical]'
The normal basis of the empirical "I" is based on empirical facts that can be proven.
If I [empirical] say, 'I am eating an apple' that can be easily proven.
The empirical "I" is based on knowledge, a fiction arising now here... Nowhere by no one or thing.

You are nowhere and no thing arising herenow...as and through the mind body experience...the action figure... a puppet with no strings attached.

I Am is everything and nothing...eating an apple is a fictional story within that which in reality is everything and nothing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am
Now,
the infinite-I that you claimed as real is actually fictional [as defined above] because there are no facts to support your claim.
There is no claimer..any claimer is a fictional story (knowledge) appearing nowhere now here...which is everything and nothing, all inclusive embodied pure awareness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am
If you claim you have first person subjective experience of 'no-me' that could be due to an temporal epilepsy, other mental problems or other reasons as claimed by so many others who have been cured with medicines, etc.
No, this is just your deluded belief that there is a ''separate you''..who is having a ''first person subjective experience of 'no-me' ''...there is no such entity.

There is ONLY the ''first person subjective experience.'' which is one without a second actual direct experience of awakeness right here right now manifesting all at once without an object..there is NOT a first person subjective experience having the experience of 'no-me'

You are confused.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am
The truth is,
the infinite-I [unprovable] is a fictional idea of the empirical-I [verifiable].
Such a situation arise due to some psychological impulses arising from an existential crisis.

The actual direct experience of self without an object to be is verifiable as manifesting right now... all else is a fictional belief made of concepts and imagination overlayed upon what already is, was, and always will be add infinitum..


No, The psychological impulses arising from an existential crisis belongs in the realm of the conceptual fictional strawman, of which there is no verifiable evidence for except as an artificial creation of the mind..in reality there is no such idea in the actual direct experience of awakeness one without a second.


.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:25 am

You have to retract your claim 'the fictional story of I [empirical]'
The normal basis of the empirical "I" is based on empirical facts that can be proven.
If I [empirical] say, 'I am eating an apple' that can be easily proven.
The empirical "I" is based on knowledge, a fiction arising now here... Nowhere by no one or thing.

You are nowhere and no thing arising herenow...as and through the mind body experience...the action figure... a puppet with no strings attached.

I Am is everything and nothing...eating an apple is a fictional story within that which in reality is everything and nothing.
You are still shifty, looks like shiftiness is already your inherent nature.

Note I have already defined what is 'fiction'

Fiction:
Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

If E-you [i.e. empirical you] are eating an apple in front of 10,000 people and telecasted live to the whole world, E-you would state 'I am eating an apple'.
That is a provable fact.
How can that be a fiction or fictional story?

As such the empirical "I" or the 'you' that is eating the apple is a real and a fact.
The empirical "I" is not based on merely knowledge alone.
If you have a toothache, you will tell the dentist 'I have pain from this molar.'
Thus you have direct experience of the empirical "I".
Therefore E-you cannot claim the empirical "I" do not exists.
Can you confirm this is true?

The various issues with the "I" are the following;
-the empirical "I" can think, cognize and hallucinate with its empirical brain.

1. A problem arises when the empirical "I" idealized there is a permanent "I" that can survives after physical death with eternal life or reincarnate/reborn some other forms.
This is also a type of hallucination [say 60%]
This you agree there is no such independent I re Descartes' dualism.

2. Another problem is when the empirical "I" thinks and perceives itself as independent and separate from the objects that it is observing, i.e. another form of dualism.
This is another type of hallucination [say 40%]
This is the philosophical contention between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical anti-Realism. I am with Philosophical anti-realism because the empirical "I" is part & parcel, and interdependent with reality.
You do agree with this dualism in way but your explanation is way off when you insists the empirical "I" and the things it perceives are merely fictional story.
Your problem is you don't have depth and width in your thinking, thus ending up being shifty and conflating most of the time on this issue.

3. The major problem emerging from the real empirical "I" is when the empirical-I hallucinates an Absolute Reality [aka God] beyond 1 and 2 above and insists that is the ultimate reality. This is hallucination of the highest order, i.e. 99%.
I have proven God is moot, a non-starter and an impossibility to be real.
The reason why the empirical-I hallucinates such an Absolute Reality aka God is due to the terrible existential psychological states within that empirical-I.
This is proven from psychiatric evidences of people experiencing God or they are God.

From the above, I have shown the empirical-I exists and its facts are be easily verifiable.
The idea of an Absolute Reality aka God and whatever the label, is the mother of all illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the highest order. Thus it is unreal and a fake.
Whilst such is a transcendental illusion, unreal and a fake, such an idealization aka hallucination is very critical to the majority to deal with a terrible existential psychological problem but it has its other side of enabling and compelling some believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers.

Thus my point is,
the empirical "I" exists empirically and is central i.e. the most real [not absolutely real].

I don't think it effective to proceed to further arguments until we have resolve the above issues.
You are engaging in a mother of illusion while you are "falsely" accusing others of creating fictional stories.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 am

Note I have already defined what is 'fiction'

Fiction:
Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

If E-you [i.e. empirical you] are eating an apple in front of 10,000 people and telecasted live to the whole world, E-you would state 'I am eating an apple'.
That is a provable fact.
How can that be a fiction or fictional story?
Because to know you were eating an apple is knowledge of yourself. In reality there is no knowledge of a self except an imagined one. Real knowledge of self is knowing there is no self but self alone all ONE.

There is no human being eating an apple except consciousness itself, consciousness is the only knowing there is. Consciousness is verifiable in the actuality of being. There is no one being consciousness. There is only consciousness.

So to say ''I am a human being that is conscious of eating this apple'' is the fiction, its an energetic illusory artificial imprint- overlaid upon what is already here as consciousness ...In reality a human being is an idea of consciousness, NOT actual. A human being claiming it is eating an apple is a story consciousness is dreaming. Any such claim as ''I am consciousness'' is the fiction within the real. The trick is to be conscious you are consciousness, NOT be conscious you are a human...which is a fictional conceptual overlay within the real you.

Consciousness is this universal ageless, endless, unborn, unchanging YOU ...observing yourself as change...aka consciousness aware of itself as other, the fictional story within consciousness itself one without a second...appearing as the many...but always itself immediately directly and actual right NOW in realtime.

Any knowledge of consciousness...ie: a human claimer of consciousness.. and your back into conceptual fiction, belief, and imagination.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 am
The idea of an Absolute Reality aka God and whatever the label, is the mother of all illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion of the highest order.
Awareness could not be aware of itself as awareness if it was not absolute.

Any relative idea about the absolute is absurd. The absolute is not relative to anything but itself.

That which appears to be transcendental cannot transcend itself, except in the dream of separation which is a fiction...for to trancend is to be separate from the all that is which its never not...only imagined to be within the dream of other.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:40 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 am

Note I have already defined what is 'fiction'

Fiction:
Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

If E-you [i.e. empirical you] are eating an apple in front of 10,000 people and telecasted live to the whole world, E-you would state 'I am eating an apple'.
That is a provable fact.
How can that be a fiction or fictional story?
Because to know you were eating an apple is knowledge of yourself. In reality there is no knowledge of a self except an imagined one. Real knowledge of self is knowing there is no self but self alone all ONE.
You are shifty again and not wanting to be precise.

To be precise it should be as follows;
  • Because to know you [empirical] were eating an apple is knowledge of yourself [empirical self].
    In reality [empirical] there is no knowledge of a self [transcendental] except an imagined [idealized] one.
    Real knowledge of self [empirical] is knowing there is no self [transcendental].
What you refuse to identify the two aspects of self, i.e. the empirical and the transcendental self.
In addition, you jump from nowhere to conclude there is the ONE [aka Absolute, God and the likes]

Your addition 'but self alone all ONE' is an illusion generated by your empirical self due to terrible psychological desperation that compels you [empirical] to such an illusion, unreal thing and a fake.

This is the same drive along the same continuum that compels the schizo to insists gnomes are real because the gnomes 'talked' to him. The difference is merely the degree.

It is likely there is a mild degree of depersonalization disorder that drives a person to sense the there is no "I" and merge with the ONE.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:47 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:38 am

Note I have already defined what is 'fiction'

Fiction:
Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction

If E-you [i.e. empirical you] are eating an apple in front of 10,000 people and telecasted live to the whole world, E-you would state 'I am eating an apple'.
That is a provable fact.
How can that be a fiction or fictional story?
There is no human being eating an apple except consciousness itself, consciousness is the only knowing there is. Consciousness is verifiable in the actuality of being. There is no one being consciousness. There is only consciousness.

So to say ''I am a human being that is conscious of eating this apple'' is the fiction, its an energetic illusory artificial imprint- overlaid upon what is already here as consciousness ...In reality a human being is an idea of consciousness, NOT actual. A human being claiming it is eating an apple is a story consciousness is dreaming. Any such claim as ''I am consciousness'' is the fiction within the real. The trick is to be conscious you are consciousness, NOT be conscious you are a human...which is a fictional conceptual overlay within the real you.

Consciousness is this universal ageless, endless, unborn, unchanging YOU ...observing yourself as change...aka consciousness aware of itself as other, the fictional story within consciousness itself one without a second...appearing as the many...but always itself immediately directly and actual right NOW in realtime.

Any knowledge of consciousness...ie: a human claimer of consciousness.. and your back into conceptual fiction, belief, and imagination.
I have already defined what is fiction above.
However you keep ignoring that point.

Saying ''I am a human being that is conscious of eating this apple' is an empirical fact which can be verified by evidences.

Your saying "Consciousness is this universal ageless, endless, unborn, unchanging YOU ...observing yourself as change..."
is actually fictional by definition because the above is not a fact and you have no prove for such.

The criteria is proof, I can prove my statement, while you cannot prove your point at all.

I suggest you read and think deeply of the various threads I open re Depersonalization and Derealization. It is very likely you have some encounters arising from the above in a very small degree [mini].

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:04 am

You are infinite consciousness appearing as finite form.

No proof required. You are consciousness without doubt or error.

You cannot know what is finite - without knowing its complimentary opposite - both are ONE existing in the same instant.

Both finite and infinite are the same one seamless actual reality co-dependantly appearing as and through the dream of separation...within actual direct experience right here right now mysteriously one without a second.

Knowledge of the mysterious is in the realm of imagination, belief, and concept...a fictional story overlaid upon what is always and ever this unknown actual reality.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:40 am
You are shifty again and not wanting to be precise.

This is the same drive along the same continuum that compels the schizo to insists gnomes are real because the gnomes 'talked' to him. The difference is merely the degree.

It is likely there is a mild degree of depersonalization disorder that drives a person to sense the there is no "I" and merge with the ONE.
No I ever merged with the ONE...there is only ONE..any merging is in the dream of separation, a fiction.


As soon as there is an apparent shift (a yank back) into the realm of fictional fame,blaim & claims, including demands for proof...Is the shift back into the realm of mental quackery, the non-existence place of concept, belief, and imagination, arising from nowhere...the realm of being falsely self- identified as a ''separate entity''

In ACTUAL DIRECT reality, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you, you are consciously unconscious, rationally irrational, perfectly imperfect, precisely imprecise, presently not-present, and correctly incorrect.. aware you are aware, without doubt or error.

Actual reality is neither perfect or imperfect, right or wrong, conscious nor unconscious, mentally ill, unstable, scihtzo, mad or deranged in any way shape or form...all this belongs to the dream of appearances where the opposite is also true...all appearances within the dream of separation mingle in and amongst each other, and in that every named thing is an object ...and where there are objects each will affect the other on contact..Here in the dream of objects there is either coherent or non-coherent sensation fuzzy, or clear..depending on what appearances are mixing & mingling together causing their effects. All experienced by consciousness alone. In other words, no thing other than consciousness (not-a-thing) itself appears as every sensation sensed in effect.



The real you does not look at the object and identify itself as that object, it is the awareness of the object, not the object itself. It doesn't identify with the object and say I am this sensation, this feeling, this object, this body, this mind, this consciousness...Only consciousness which is not an object knows itself as the awareness of itself, and NOT the object it is aware of..rather, the object is the ''looked upon'' inseparable from awareness the looker...Subject and Object are one and the same not-a-thing in the exact same instant, one with the knowing.



.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:41 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
The real you does not look at the object and identify itself as that object - it is the awareness of the object not the object itself. It doesnt identify with the object and say I am this sensation this feeling - this object - this body - this mind - this consciousness .. Only consciousness which is not an object knows itself as the awareness of itself and NOT the object it is aware of ... rather the object is the looked upon inseparable from awareness the looker ... Subject and Object are one and the same not a thing in the exact same instant one with the knowing ...
I may be a manifestation of consciousness but I cannot see myself as that because my sense of me as subject is so powerful
I have always thought of myself this way so to suddenly not think of myself like that would require more will than I possess
I can understand it but cannot feel it although I am not rejecting it just merely accepting that I cannot make the transition

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:55 pm

However I have implanted the thought in my mind so whether it accepts it or not only time will tell
Sometimes an idea or a concept is not accepted immediately because it is too strange for the mind

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Inside the Lions Den

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:04 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:55 pm
However I have implanted the thought in my mind so whether it accepts it or not only time will tell
Sometimes an idea or a concept is not accepted immediately because it is too strange for the mind

“Come to the edge," he said.
"We can't, we're afraid!" they responded.
"Come to the edge," he said.
"We can't, We will fall!" they responded.
"Come to the edge," he said.
And so they came.
And he pushed them.
And they flew.”

― Guillaume Apollinaire

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:40 pm

My mind would tell me not to go to anywhere near the edge because I would not fly but would definitely fall
But even if it never lets go I will finally be free from it when I am dead so ultimately it makes no difference

Then I will have no mind ever again and so I will not be confined any more by what or how it thinks
Going from non consciousness to non existence and being more free in death than I ever was in life

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:55 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:04 am
You are infinite consciousness appearing as finite form.

No proof required. You are consciousness without doubt or error.

You cannot know what is finite - without knowing its complimentary opposite - both are ONE existing in the same instant.

Both finite and infinite are the same one seamless actual reality co-dependantly appearing as and through the dream of separation...within actual direct experience right here right now mysteriously one without a second.

Knowledge of the mysterious is in the realm of imagination, belief, and concept...a fictional story overlaid upon what is always and ever this unknown actual reality.
Again you are shifty and conflating.

There is empirical-consciousness and transcendental-CONSCIOUSNESS [fake and unreal] which you would normally reduce to the Absolute, ONENESS, GOD and the likes.

We cannot 'doubt'* empirical-consciousness based on a first person experience of it.
* but note there is no 100% certainty.
Btw, we can have empirically based oneness [etc. in teams] and empirically based absolutes [with small 'a'].

However, that ultimate CONSCIOUSNESS that you are postulating is an transcendental illusion generated by the empirical brain, mind and self.
I have given some basis of evidence to this.
Meanwhile you have no proof at all to justify that ultimate CONSCIOUSNESS aka Absolute, God, ONENESS and the likes exists as real.

The root cause to all the above illusions fall back on the provable terrible psychological state of the provable empirical self.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: So the begging question is: why call reality ''God'' anyway ?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:15 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:40 am
You are shifty again and not wanting to be precise.

This is the same drive along the same continuum that compels the schizo to insists gnomes are real because the gnomes 'talked' to him. The difference is merely the degree.

It is likely there is a mild degree of depersonalization disorder that drives a person to sense the there is no "I" and merge with the ONE.
No I ever merged with the ONE...there is only ONE..any merging is in the dream of separation, a fiction.
Read my last sentence again, I did not imply "no-I" merge with the ONE. Rather I stated you [not me] are claiming there is no-I and there is an emergent of ONE.
You are contradicting yourself because you are shifty and conflating again.
Note, you have used the wave and ocean as one.
In this sense you are merging the wave with the ocean.

Regardless, note I do not agree with the above which is an illusion due to some degree of depersonalization.

As soon as there is an apparent shift (a yank back) into the realm of fictional fame,blaim & claims, including demands for proof...Is the shift back into the realm of mental quackery, the non-existence place of concept, belief, and imagination, arising from nowhere...the realm of being falsely self- identified as a ''separate entity''

In ACTUAL DIRECT reality, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you, you are consciously unconscious, rationally irrational, perfectly imperfect, precisely imprecise, presently not-present, and correctly incorrect.. aware you are aware, without doubt or error.

Actual reality is neither perfect or imperfect, right or wrong, conscious nor unconscious, mentally ill, unstable, scihtzo, mad or deranged in any way shape or form...all this belongs to the dream of appearances where the opposite is also true...all appearances within the dream of separation mingle in and amongst each other, and in that every named thing is an object ...and where there are objects each will affect the other on contact..Here in the dream of objects there is either coherent or non-coherent sensation fuzzy, or clear..depending on what appearances are mixing & mingling together causing their effects. All experienced by consciousness alone. In other words, no thing other than consciousness (not-a-thing) itself appears as every sensation sensed in effect.

The real you does not look at the object and identify itself as that object, it is the awareness of the object, not the object itself. It doesn't identify with the object and say I am this sensation, this feeling, this object, this body, this mind, this consciousness...Only consciousness which is not an object knows itself as the awareness of itself, and NOT the object it is aware of..rather, the object is the ''looked upon'' inseparable from awareness the looker...Subject and Object are one and the same not-a-thing in the exact same instant, one with the knowing.
There is only the empirical-you or empirical self which is justifiable and provable. There is no real-transcendental-you.
The above culminating in an Absolute aka God are illusory and quackery generated by the empirical self.

You keep deflecting and shifting.

Can you confirm the empirical-self and empirical-you is real, i.e. empirically justifiable and provable?
Yes or No?

Don't deflect to the transcendental-you nor transcendental-self, that is a different issue to be sorted out after you have answer the above.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests