> > Religion is pretty handy if you aren't bright, and very handy for the
> > bright seeking to manipulate the unbright.  It's quite clear we are
> > very disingenuous about our emotions and haven't yet learned or
> > evolved any new tricks to spot deception in the moment of the
> > deception.  Trampling reason underfoot is commonplace and is necessary
> > for those who want to manipuilate.  Yet reasoning too is often used to
> > manipulate, so if you ain't good at it, why not use faith and
> > 'Blairing'.  I actually want to commune in reason from time to time,
> > but one needs faith the presume one will ever find any.

>      The trick is knowing that you never leave that sense of
> communion, with or without faith or reason.  As Confucius might have
> said: the Superior Man manipulates himself for the greater good of
> all.

> > On 20 Jul, 19:43, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > On 20 Jul, 17:23, bjdowling <bjmos...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Possibly your desire for "submission" is unreasonable to rational
> > > > believers who prefer freedom of the mind and have no religion or
> > > > ritual.  Your words though speak loudly of your own character, but no
> > > > more.

> > >      With his desire for submission, he becomes the prophet of a
> > > Godless Islam himself, as Islam means 'submission'.  And, with his
> > > glad embracing of the Whore of Babylon, he rides with the beast
> > > foretold.  It's talk like that that only guarantees enemies.  And,
> > > perhaps, pity from those of us who see there's no gain or merit in it.

> > > > On Jul 19, 9:56 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > Luther identified the greatest danger to Christianity. Martin Luther
> > > > > had one thing right. He said that to beleive in god required faith,
> > > > > not reason. Reason, he said was the enemy of faith. which had to be
> > > > > trampled underfoot.

> > > > > Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being
> > > > > she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed
> > > > > whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under
> > > > > foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to
> > > > > make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She
> > > > > would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in
> > > > > the house, to the closets.
> > > > > Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

> > > > > It all a matter of choice, either live a life or rationality and
> > > > > reason, or believe in god.

> > > > > I choose reason. I will embrace the whore of the Devil, though she be
> > > > > eaten by leprosy. I will bear her up to avoid the tramping feet of the
> > > > > ignorant hoards of Christians and Moslems who have throughout history
> > > > > tried to suppress her. If she bears scabs and is wretched it is
> > > > > because of the indignities and wounds she has suffered from the blind
> > > > > stupidity of Abrahamic faith.

> > > > > The concepts of god and the practices of religion will not and cannot
> > > > > submit to reason. All the rituals are unreasonable, the beliefs
> > > > > unconscionable; the basis without evidence. Faith bolsters the
> > > > > infantile and tragic delusion that the majority of humans suffer
> > > > > under.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> > Religion is pretty handy if you aren't bright, and very handy for the
> > bright seeking to manipulate the unbright.  It's quite clear we are
> > very disingenuous about our emotions and haven't yet learned or
> > evolved any new tricks to spot deception in the moment of the
> > deception.  Trampling reason underfoot is commonplace and is necessary
> > for those who want to manipuilate.  Yet reasoning too is often used to
> > manipulate, so if you ain't good at it, why not use faith and
> > 'Blairing'.  I actually want to commune in reason from time to time,
> > but one needs faith the presume one will ever find any.

>      The trick is knowing that you never leave that sense of
> communion, with or without faith or reason.  As Confucius might have
> said: the Superior Man manipulates himself for the greater good of
> all.

> > On 20 Jul, 19:43, Pat
 wrote:

> > > On 20 Jul, 17:23, bjdowling  wrote:

> > > > Possibly your desire for "submission" is unreasonable to rational
> > > > believers who prefer freedom of the mind and have no religion or
> > > > ritual.  Your words though speak loudly of your own character, but no
> > > > more.

> > >      With his desire for submission, he becomes the prophet of a
> > > Godless Islam himself, as Islam means 'submission'.  And, with his
> > > glad embracing of the Whore of Babylon, he rides with the beast
> > > foretold.  It's talk like that that only guarantees enemies.  And,
> > > perhaps, pity from those of us who see there's no gain or merit in it.

> > > > On Jul 19, 9:56 am, chazwin  wrote:

> > > > > Luther identified the greatest danger to Christianity. Martin Luther
> > > > > had one thing right. He said that to beleive in god required faith,
> > > > > not reason. Reason, he said was the enemy of faith. which had to be
> > > > > trampled underfoot.

> > > > > Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being
> > > > > she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed
> > > > > whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under
> > > > > foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to
> > > > > make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She
> > > > > would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in
> > > > > the house, to the closets.
> > > > > Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

> > > > > It all a matter of choice, either live a life or rationality and
> > > > > reason, or believe in god.

> > > > > I choose reason. I will embrace the whore of the Devil, though she be
> > > > > eaten by leprosy. I will bear her up to avoid the tramping feet of the
> > > > > ignorant hoards of Christians and Moslems who have throughout history
> > > > > tried to suppress her. If she bears scabs and is wretched it is
> > > > > because of the indignities and wounds she has suffered from the blind
> > > > > stupidity of Abrahamic faith.

> > > > > The concepts of god and the practices of religion will not and cannot
> > > > > submit to reason. All the rituals are unreasonable, the beliefs
> > > > > unconscionable; the basis without evidence. Faith bolsters the
> > > > > infantile and tragic delusion that the majority of humans suffer
> > > > > under.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> On 7月20日, 下午5時27分, Viswanathan <visw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Pottsie,
> > I am an atheist, and feel surprised at your statement,
> > "....conveniently leaving out Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol
> > Pot.......all atheistic in outlook." At least Dawkins did not leave
> > them out conveniently. Please see the following quote from 'God
> > delusion'.Pages 272-274

> > 'Hitler and Stalin were atheists. What have you got to say about
> > that?' The question comes up after just about every public lecture
> > that I ever give on the subject of religion, and in most of my radio
> > interviews as well. It is put in a truculent way, indignantly
> > freighted
> > with two assumptions: not only (1) were Stalin and Hitler atheists,
> > but (2) they did their terrible deeds because they were
> > atheists. Assumption (1) is true for Stalin and dubious for Hitler.
> > But assumption (1) is irrelevant anyway, because assumption (2) is
> > false. It is certainly illogical if it is thought to follow from (1).
> > Even

> > if we accept that Hitler and Stalin shared atheism in common, they
> > both also had moustaches, as does Saddam Hussein. So what? The
> > interesting question is not whether evil (or good) individual human
> > beings were religious or were atheists. We are not in the business of
> > counting evil heads and compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity.
> > The fact that Nazi belt buckles were inscribed with 'Gott mit uns'
> > doesn't prove anything, at least not without a lot more discussion.
> > What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but
> > whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things.
> > There is not the smallest evidence that it does.
> > There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an
> > atheist. He received his education at an Orthodox seminary, and his
> > mother never lost her disappointment that he had not entered the
> > priesthood as she intended - a fact that, according to Alan Bullock,
> > caused Stalin much amusement.106 Perhaps because of his training
> > for the priesthood, the mature Stalin was scathing about the
> > Russian Orthodox Church, and about Christianity and religion in
> > general. But there is no evidence that his atheism motivated his
> > brutality. His earlier religious training probably didn't either,
> > unless
> > it was through teaching him to revere absolutist faith, strong
> > authority and a belief that ends justify means.
> > The legend that Hitler was an atheist has been assiduously
> > cultivated, so much so that a great many people believe it without
> > question, and it is regularly and defiantly trotted out by religious
> > apologists. The truth of the matter is far from clear. Hitler was born
> > into a Catholic family, and went to Catholic schools and churches
> > as a child. Obviously that is not significant in itself: he could
> > easily
> > have given it up, as Stalin gave up his Russian Orthodoxy after
> > leaving the Tiflis Theological Seminary. But Hitler never formally
> > renounced his Catholicism, and there are indications throughout
> > his life that he remained religious. If not Catholic, he seems to have
> > retained a belief in some sort of divine providence. For example he
> > stated in Mein Kampf that, when he heard the news of the declaration
> > of the First World War, 'I sank down on my knees and
> > thanked Heaven out of the fullness of my heart for the favour of
> > having been permitted to live in such a time.' But that was 1914,
> > when he was still only twenty-five. Perhaps he changed after that?
> > In 1920, when Hitler was thirty-one, his close associate Rudolf

> > Hess, later to be deputy Führer, wrote in a letter to the Prime
> > Minister of Bavaria, 'I know Herr Hitler very well personally and am
> > quite close to him. He has an unusually honourable character, full of
> > profound kindness, is religious, a good Catholic.' Of course, it
> > could be said that, since Hess got the 'honourable character' and the
> > 'profound kindness' so crashingly wrong, maybe he got the 'good
> > Catholic' wrong too! Hitler could scarcely be described as a
> > 'good' anything, which reminds me of the most comically audacious
> > argument I have heard in favour of the proposition that Hitler must
> > have been an atheist. Paraphrasing from many sources, Hitler was a
> > bad man, Christianity teaches goodness, therefore Hitler can't have
> > been a Christian! Goering's remark about Hitler, 'Only a Catholic
> > could unite Germany,' might, I suppose, have meant somebody
> > brought up Catholic rather than a believing Catholic.
> > In a speech of 1933 in Berlin, Hitler said, 'We were convinced
> > that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore
> > undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not
> > merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it
> > out.' That might indicate only that, like many others, Hitler
> > 'believed in belief. But as late as 1941 he told his adjutant, General
> > Gerhard Engel, 'I shall remain a Catholic for ever.'
> > Even if he didn't remain a sincerely believing Christian, Hitler
> > would have to have been positively unusual not to have been influenced
> > by the long Christian tradition of blaming Jews as
> > Christ-killers. In a speech in Munich in 1923, Hitler said, 'The first
> > thing to do is to rescue [Germany] from the Jew who is ruining our
> > country . . . We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as
> > Another did, the death upon the Cross.'110 In his Adolf Hitler: The
> > Definitive Biography, John Toland wrote of Hitler's religious
> > position at the time of the 'final solution':
> > Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome
> > despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him
> > its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The
> > extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge
> > of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging
> > hand of god - so long as it was done impersonally, without
> > cruelty.

> > On Jul 20, 4:46 am, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > God, I knew that Planck was a Theist, but I never knew he held such thoughtful beliefs or that he was as outspoken.

> > > It's pretty common knowledge that Einstein's belief infuriated some of his collegues, but it looks as if Planck was right up there with him.

> > > The typical response you get when you bring up Newton or Galileo's belief is "Oh, well.......they lived before the Age of Reason."  Not so with Max and Albert!  :)

> > > Catch this one I just came across!  I can see Dawkins choking on his hot dog right now!  "Tut, tut, ahem, bluster, bluster.........um......let's get back to bashing the easy Fundamentalist Targets!"    ;)

> > > "Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but - which is even worse - also any prospects at a better future."

> > > Max Planck - Religion und Naturwissenschaft (Leipzig, 1958)

> > > This quote looks like it might have been directed at Sam Harris who believes that atheists' biggest challege is to stop fighting the idea of Theism and expose faulty thinking (paraphrased).  That way Theism will just die out...... (from an edited

> People who don't like Jazz don't go to jazz concerts, except on very rare occasions, because they like the fellowship with the Jazz enthusiast.  The "noise" drives them away.

> Neither can I imagine a believer hanging out with a group of atheists.....for the fellowship.

> On rare occasions maybe, but you make it sound as if it were common, and that atheists overlook believers' beliefs.  One visit to Christianity vs Atheism group will let you know that THAT is impossible.  As Pat said,

> "In many cases, said spirit of bullying whether overt or covert IS not
> only what is projected but very often is the entire message itself."

> This group may be an exception, because the atheists on this board do very little bullying.......with a couple of exceptions.  (That may have to do with moderation more than anything else....but I'd like to think not.)  However, just listening to the mockery and arrogance of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al., "leaders" of the New Atheist movement (what a misnomer THAT is.) will show you that oil and water won't mix socially.

> Namaste

> Pottsie

> archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I've known quite a few academics who did the Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindi/
> Buddist/B'Hai thingies for fellowship whilst not believing any of the
> rot of the fables (meanings and interpretation of stories-parables
> etc. being different) and knowing corruption is pretty rife in
> religion.

>  I prefer to be a Chazwinian.  I want more honesty, whether
> in general life or in communion and fellowship.  The reasons we may
> jump in and save someone are more complex than Pottsie suggests -
> ironically I'd quote the good samaritan at him!  Now there's a can of
> worms.  There are problems in believing in shared rot.  Roger Penrose
> (Shadows of the Mind) states that no scientific world view can claim
> to be complete if it dismisses mind-consciousness, though states his
> aim is a scientific world view that incorporates such.  I am atheist
> only in not wanting to believe rot and so is Chaz, whatever he says
> (and who is he to comment on his own subjectivity now he can live in
> my patronising world of knowing people better than they can know
> themselves!! - the new universe of Kneel is upon us!!).  My followers
> can be seen everywhere uttering the mantra 'bolloxs' after everything
> I say ...

> On 21 Jul, 01:40, Pat

>  wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 12:13 am, archytas  wrote:

> > > Religion is pretty handy if you aren't bright, and very handy for the
> > > bright seeking to manipulate the unbright.  It's quite clear we are
> > > very disingenuous about our emotions and haven't yet learned or
> > > evolved any new tricks to spot deception in the moment of the
> > > deception.  Trampling reason underfoot is commonplace and is necessary
> > > for those who want to manipuilate.  Yet reasoning too is often used to
> > > manipulate, so if you ain't good at it, why not use faith and
> > > 'Blairing'.  I actually want to commune in reason from time to time,
> > > but one needs faith the presume one will ever find any.

> >      The trick is knowing that you never leave that sense of
> > communion, with or without faith or reason.  As Confucius might have
> > said: the Superior Man manipulates himself for the greater good of
> > all.

> > > On 20 Jul, 19:43, Pat
>  wrote:

> > > > On 20 Jul, 17:23, bjdowling  wrote:

> > > > > Possibly your desire for "submission" is unreasonable to rational
> > > > > believers who prefer freedom of the mind and have no religion or
> > > > > ritual.  Your words though speak loudly of your own character, but no
> > > > > more.

> > > >      With his desire for submission, he becomes the prophet of a
> > > > Godless Islam himself, as Islam means 'submission'.  And, with his
> > > > glad embracing of the Whore of Babylon, he rides with the beast
> > > > foretold.  It's talk like that that only guarantees enemies.  And,
> > > > perhaps, pity from those of us who see there's no gain or merit in it.

> > > > > On Jul 19, 9:56 am, chazwin  wrote:

> > > > > > Luther identified the greatest danger to Christianity. Martin Luther
> > > > > > had one thing right. He said that to beleive in god required faith,
> > > > > > not reason. Reason, he said was the enemy of faith. which had to be
> > > > > > trampled underfoot.

> > > > > > Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being
> > > > > > she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed
> > > > > > whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under
> > > > > > foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to
> > > > > > make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She
> > > > > > would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in
> > > > > > the house, to the closets.
> > > > > > Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

> > > > > > It all a matter of choice, either live a life or rationality and
> > > > > > reason, or believe in god.

> > > > > > I choose reason. I will embrace the whore of the Devil, though she be
> > > > > > eaten by leprosy. I will bear her up to avoid the tramping feet of the
> > > > > > ignorant hoards of Christians and Moslems who have throughout history
> > > > > > tried to suppress her. If she bears scabs and is wretched it is
> > > > > > because of the indignities and wounds she has suffered from the blind
> > > > > > stupidity of Abrahamic faith.

> > > > > > The concepts of god and the practices of religion will not and cannot
> > > > > > submit to reason. All the rituals are unreasonable, the beliefs
> > > > > > unconscionable; the basis without evidence. Faith bolsters the
> > > > > > infantile and tragic delusion that the majority of humans suffer
> > > > > > under.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> For many years I was an active member of the A vs C chat room on Yahoo
> that then morphed into the Yahoo group by the same name. I checked
> into the group today and found it sort of running out of steam.
> Anyway, as an atheist, while I do admit to a bit of baiting of the
> more fanatical, those believers who would at least talk and discuss
> stuff with me I found to be quite interesting and did make a few,
> albeit online, friends there.
> I tried the A vs C group here and found the normal flamers and closed
> minds...on both 'sides' of the issue.

> On Jul 20, 10:24 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I can't imagine "quite a lot of academics who don't believe the rot of the fables" hanging with believers.

> > People who don't like Jazz don't go to jazz concerts, except on very rare occasions, because they like the fellowship with the Jazz enthusiast.  The "noise" drives them away.

> > Neither can I imagine a believer hanging out with a group of atheists.....for the fellowship.

> > On rare occasions maybe, but you make it sound as if it were common, and that atheists overlook believers' beliefs.  One visit to Christianity vs Atheism group will let you know that THAT is impossible.  As Pat said,

> > "In many cases, said spirit of bullying whether overt or covert IS not
> > only what is projected but very often is the entire message itself."

> > This group may be an exception, because the atheists on this board do very little bullying.......with a couple of exceptions.  (That may have to do with moderation more than anything else....but I'd like to think not.)  However, just listening to the mockery and arrogance of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al., "leaders" of the New Atheist movement (what a misnomer THAT is.) will show you that oil and water won't mix socially.

> > Namaste

> > Pottsie

> > archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > I've known quite a few academics who did the Xtian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindi/
> > Buddist/B'Hai thingies for fellowship whilst not believing any of the
> > rot of the fables (meanings and interpretation of stories-parables
> > etc. being different) and knowing corruption is pretty rife in
> > religion.

> >  I prefer to be a Chazwinian.  I want more honesty, whether
> > in general life or in communion and fellowship.  The reasons we may
> > jump in and save someone are more complex than Pottsie suggests -
> > ironically I'd quote the good samaritan at him!  Now there's a can of
> > worms.  There are problems in believing in shared rot.  Roger Penrose
> > (Shadows of the Mind) states that no scientific world view can claim
> > to be complete if it dismisses mind-consciousness, though states his
> > aim is a scientific world view that incorporates such.  I am atheist
> > only in not wanting to believe rot and so is Chaz, whatever he says
> > (and who is he to comment on his own subjectivity now he can live in
> > my patronising world of knowing people better than they can know
> > themselves!! - the new universe of Kneel is upon us!!).  My followers
> > can be seen everywhere uttering the mantra 'bolloxs' after everything
> > I say ...

> > On 21 Jul, 01:40, Pat

> >  wrote:
> > > On Jul 21, 12:13 am, archytas  wrote:

> > > > Religion is pretty handy if you aren't bright, and very handy for the
> > > > bright seeking to manipulate the unbright.  It's quite clear we are
> > > > very disingenuous about our emotions and haven't yet learned or
> > > > evolved any new tricks to spot deception in the moment of the
> > > > deception.  Trampling reason underfoot is commonplace and is necessary
> > > > for those who want to manipuilate.  Yet reasoning too is often used to
> > > > manipulate, so if you ain't good at it, why not use faith and
> > > > 'Blairing'.  I actually want to commune in reason from time to time,
> > > > but one needs faith the presume one will ever find any.

> > >      The trick is knowing that you never leave that sense of
> > > communion, with or without faith or reason.  As Confucius might have
> > > said: the Superior Man manipulates himself for the greater good of
> > > all.

> > > > On 20 Jul, 19:43, Pat
> >  wrote:

> > > > > On 20 Jul, 17:23, bjdowling  wrote:

> > > > > > Possibly your desire for "submission" is unreasonable to rational
> > > > > > believers who prefer freedom of the mind and have no religion or
> > > > > > ritual.  Your words though speak loudly of your own character, but no
> > > > > > more.

> > > > >      With his desire for submission, he becomes the prophet of a
> > > > > Godless Islam himself, as Islam means 'submission'.  And, with his
> > > > > glad embracing of the Whore of Babylon, he rides with the beast
> > > > > foretold.  It's talk like that that only guarantees enemies.  And,
> > > > > perhaps, pity from those of us who see there's no gain or merit in it.

> > > > > > On Jul 19, 9:56 am, chazwin  wrote:

> > > > > > > Luther identified the greatest danger to Christianity. Martin Luther
> > > > > > > had one thing right. He said that to beleive in god required faith,
> > > > > > > not reason. Reason, he said was the enemy of faith. which had to be
> > > > > > > trampled underfoot.

> > > > > > > Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being
> > > > > > > she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed
> > > > > > > whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under
> > > > > > > foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to
> > > > > > > make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She
> > > > > > > would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in
> > > > > > > the house, to the closets.
> > > > > > > Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

> > > > > > > It all a matter of choice, either live a life or rationality and
> > > > > > > reason, or believe in god.

> > > > > > > I choose reason. I will embrace the whore of the Devil, though she be
> > > > > > > eaten by leprosy. I will bear her up to avoid the tramping feet of the
> > > > > > > ignorant hoards of Christians and Moslems who have throughout history
> > > > > > > tried to suppress her. If she bears scabs and is wretched it is
> > > > > > > because of the indignities and wounds she has suffered from the blind
> > > > > > > stupidity of Abrahamic faith.

> > > > > > > The concepts of god and the practices of religion will not and cannot
> > > > > > > submit to reason. All the rituals are unreasonable, the beliefs
> > > > > > > unconscionable; the basis without evidence. Faith bolsters the
> > > > > > > infantile and tragic delusion that the majority of humans suffer
> > > > > > > under.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -