|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 28, 2015 8:38:49 GMT 10
And now my reply gets deleted. Welcome back to fascism where alternative views are verboten. To be honest slarti, I don't know how your reply got deleted. I was going to respond to it, and opted out of it at the last moment; cancelling my post. Perhaps in my haste, further alterations were made; I can neither confirm or deny, in good any conscience. If the damage was by my hand, I am sincerely sorry, it was never my intention. In any case, I'm glad you managed to save and re-post. Now to your question: It doesn't really justify your atheism, or atheism in general; neither does it invalidate theism. I won't answer your insincere question, because it's irrelevance forecasts your intention to make fun. I'm the better man by allowing it; and denying you the poison you crave. If you want to demonstrate that atheism is true, please stick to topics that justify your atheism. g'nite.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 28, 2015 12:38:05 GMT 10
I don't want get into the point scoring over minor moral points between you two but it's unavoidable if I want to address a bigger picture. Firstly the minor squabbling over who of the two of you is posting in good faith and who of the two of you has a hidden fascist agenda.
On "good faith", the fact is that this type of forum militates against good faith posting and encourages grandstanding and jumping to the worst conclusion about the other person. So, for example, back in the days when NTB had members like Matt, Skippy, Jockstrap, Premier, Dana and all those old favourites of days of yore, it would be sufficient for somebody like me, or Bender, or you, slarti, or Yorick ... or whoever had been identified as "left" and therefore condemned, to be promptly vilified, trashed, demonised and anathematised (love that word) and the basest and vilest motives attributed to us.
Newsflash, Occam and slarti: give each other a break; cut each other a little slack. Slarti, accept Occam's explanation for the accidental deletion of your post. Accept his apology and move on. Don't call him a fascist. He isn't one. Occam, forget about "winning". Slarti is a self-proclaimed "atheist" who himself admits that he comes here as some sort of atheist "missionary". Consequently his target "numero uno" is going to be the most public and militant Christian on the board. Doesn't take Occam's Razor to work that one out. Just delete "Razor". So he's going to launch into personal attack and contumely (love that word too! We do a lot of contumely and anathema on these boards. Maybe those words need more of a workout!) with you as the target because in order to "prove" his boring points he needs to discredit you. My advice, for what it's worth, is don't engage! I'd welcome a forum on topics concerning faith with people like you and Fat as interlocutors but this forum is impossible for that sort of dialogue. There's too much destructive stuff.
As for "proving" that atheism is "true", what a vain endeavour! To set out to "prove" that God exists devalues faith. By the same token to set out to "prove" the godless universe is the height of vanity and hubris. It's noteworthy that in his Myth of Sisyphus, which none of the paleo-atheists have read or are curious about, author Albert Camus doesn't engage in a vain "debate" in which he attempts to "prove" the non-existence of God. Instead his book is an examination of the Absurd and it's that that makes it one of the greatest works of atheist philosophy of the 20th century. Bit I'm not interested in debating that with the paleo-atheists on this board because to me it isn't a "debate" with someone ending up being "right" and the other one being "wrong". I realise that simple point of departure is not accepted on this board so I won't pursue it.
I have to go but I'll leave you with a clip from the movie "Becket" where Richard Burton as the 13th century Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket pronounces excommunication on a feudal baron. It's the best scene in one of my favourite historical movies. Burton in his usual magnificence!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 28, 2015 17:35:46 GMT 10
So spake the "Paleo-Agnostic" whose "Paleo-Agnosticism" is faux and shallow. You need to embrace the "paleo" nature of your self-described "atheism". Agnostics can't be "paleo". To be an agnostic is to be riven by doubt both ways. Are we now into the same type of silly sterile arid "debate" about agnosticism v atheism that you've pursued with Occam about "proof"? Ho hum ... I never claimed that to be an atheist was to be guilty of hubris. Atheism is a perfectly respectable position to take. The hubris enters where you and your ilk become arrogant and claim to know better. No problem with that - as far as it goes! Not at all if it forms part of the 3 pillars of Christianity which are faith, hope and charity. In fact the true founder of Christianity, the Christian equivalent of the prophet Mohammad for Muslims, is Saul of Tarsus, aka St Paul, places charity above the other two. Hubris enters when faith lacks hope and charity. It's all explained in 1 Cor 13. No problem with that If you'd merely stated that you disagreed, I'd have taken that as an unexceptional, reasonable and unremarkable statement of opinion. To dismiss it as "hubris " is to claim to know better. Now that's hubris! I know.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 28, 2015 17:57:52 GMT 10
I'm being mean to slarti??
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 28, 2015 22:26:21 GMT 10
For someone claiming to be an agnostic, you sure do spend a lot of time defending the theist view at the expense of poor old Slarti. You pompous old git! 1. Let him or her that is without pomposity here on NTB cast the first aspersion! 2. Is there anyone here on NTB who isn't a bit of an old git? 3. The first two were just insults, but we now come to the more meaty bit: Do I detect a note of scepticism? That you're not really sure that I am what I say I am? Good!!! We need more scepticism on NTB. There's a bit too much grandstanding and speaking in echo chambers for my liking! The fact that you treat my claim to be an agnostic with scepticism is something I view as a healthy development. But what interests me is what you advance as the reason for your scepticism ... If slarti has a problem with me then I know and respect him well enough to expect him to take it up with me personally. I don't think it's your place to defend him and I'm certainly not under any obligation to explain or justify my interactions with slarti to you. End of story. Turning to the bit about "spending a lot of time defending the theist view", with respect Yorick I don't think you grasp the gravamen of my critique of this board. I'd love to be able to engage, as an agnostic, with serious people on a board like this. It should be possible! Strewth even serious atheists of good will can engage in productive dialogue with people of faith and indeed they do. But it seems to be beyond you people. Just because you reject faith does that mean you have to reject charity too? Let me compare the shallow, sterile and arid way you people attack faith to the shallow, sterile and arid way the shock jocks and Murdoch hate media used to attack Julia Gillard. Now I have a lot of criticisms to make of Julia Gillard but I would find myself forced to spend so much time defending her against some pretty vile stuff that there was no scope to mount a Labor critique of her and her government. Consequently one would be portrayed, falsely, as a Gillard-luvvie. Similarly because I don't support Ponto's blanket bigotry regarding Muslims I find myself responding to his accusations that I am some sort of terrorist sympathiser. And so we come to the Religion Board. Occam is a man of faith and he posts mainly on the Religion Board and on religious topics. I don't have a problem with that. Why should you? To be fair, the sig for the board is "Let the battles ... begin" and I admit that immediately sets the tone of the Religion Board as not a place of dialogue and sharing but as a battlefield. In my view that was a bad mistake and I wish it could be made right. If something happened, if there was some sort of development, some sort of acknowledgement that both sides are sufficiently confident in their positions so to seek to "prove" one side right and therefore the other side wrong is a vain and fruitless endeavour we might have a basis for some progress. Blimey we might even find we have things to talk about on the Religion Board! But it never changes, does it! Same old bullshit of personal invective and "I'm right - it's a no-brainer" It’s as boring as batshit and a waste of what could be a good board. I don't "defend the theist view", what I defend is their right to have a view and for that right to be respected.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 28, 2015 22:39:55 GMT 10
newstalkback1.proboards.com/post/78679/quote/4814Thanks for reposting all those old posts of mine. Quite a filing system you must have! If slarti finds he has a beef with me regarding any of those posts he's more than welcome to take them up with me. But I wont discuss with you any personal stuff regarding slarti and me that you allege. I'm sure you understand.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 29, 2015 5:23:46 GMT 10
Just to set the record straight on "fart jokes", I believe that's Stellar's speciality and I don't believe I've ever taken that sort of low road where I alter Slarti's nic so that it suggests a tendency to flatulence. Slarti's bodily movements are entirely his business. However since you evidently keep a record of every post submitted by every member going back to the year dot (most impressive, may I add!) you'll be in a position to prove me wrong. I bow before the meticulous and peerless filing system that you have devised that would put the Stasi to shame. You're wasted here!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 29, 2015 17:56:15 GMT 10
Sledges? This is my favourite "sledge" from the list you've dredged up. And BTW thanks again for pulling these out of your copious and voluminous Stasi files! I like having them all out there. It enables me to read them again and reassess. I've concluded that none of them is gratuitous, all of them are pertinent - especially when read in context! - and I stand by every one of them. I like this one the best : You keep framing it in terms of "proof", and all I can do is sigh and wish you a nice day. I've posted time and again on the arid territory that you force the debate onto with your "proof". Not just you, slarti, that's true. I've called your side of this bullshit non-debate about "proof" paleo-atheism because it's so reductionist, so unsophisticated and indeed so primitive. Another term I've used is "Seinfeld atheism" because it's really just an obsession about nothing. Seinfeld has gone on for years and so has this on this board. To be fair, you're not the only one who makes it all about "proof". In my view the mistake the believers make is in falling for the "proof" line and in attempting to "prove" the unprovable. It's about belief, slarti. Now I have spent a lot of time on the board expanding on belief. I've unpacked the word to reveal its link with "love" in Germanic languages such as English, and the notion of "I give my heart" in the Romance languages that are based on Latin ("credo" from "cor do" in old Latin = I give my heart). Both notions exist in English with the Anglo-Saxon "belief" and the Latin-derived "creed". There's poetry in both words and I reject your contempt for them. Belief goes to trust, and trust goes to faith. If you wanted "proof" you'd never get married. If you wanted "proof" you'd never agree to have children and if you dismissed with contempt the notion of a "leap of faith" you'd never ever take a risk. So if you claim never to have "believed" (remembering that to believe something is to accept its truth value without requiring proof), if you claim never to have trusted something or someone on face value (no proof, remember!) and if you claim to dismiss with scorn any notion of a leap of faith regarding X Y or Z simply because it "feels right", then I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Ahh, "belief" again ... I'm not trying to convert you to any belief system. I'm not trying to argue that atheism is either right or wrong. Jody is wrong when she dismisses atheism as just another religion. In fact I'd argue that in framing it that way Jody diminishes faith. Occam is wrong, in my view, when he falls into the trap of arguing that you can prove the unprovable and you are wrong when you dismiss all religious faith with the arrogance and hubris that you've displayed here. I don’t dismiss atheism. Maybe the atheists are right. But I've read enough critiques of religion by atheists of depth and substance who, while rejecting belief in a Deity, nevertheless acknowledge the poetry of religion and the role religion has played - destructively, especially today, but not always destructively - in expressing cultural identity. You can despise that if you want to. But composers like Bach didn't. I'll take Bach.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 29, 2015 18:24:06 GMT 10
I like this one too! Slarti what I reject is the intellectually arrogant way in which the question is kicked around by both sides. I'll give you an honourable exception and that's Fat who makes his own position clear and in a way that's respectful and with a healthy dose of humility. I'll readily acknowledge that he's better at respect, charity and humility than I am. He doesn't have to persuade by invoking this or that authority, or by spamming the board with c&p's and calling it "debate", or by being rude or descending to troll behaviour, his Christianity is evident simply in the way he interacts with other board members whether they agree with him or not. He wouldn't call atheism "nonsensical" any more than I would. By the same token I wouldn't call his position "nonsensical" either. You can if you want to. Of course if you did you'd find me in Fat's corner - not so much defending the "nonsensical" but defending the integrity that gives the lie to the "nonsensical" slur. You don't have to embrace uncritically the biblical creation story as literal truth. I don’t but I don't dismiss it as "nonsensical". You want to look for nits to pick in the Bible? Go ahead! No shortage of low-hanging fruit for the intellectual sluggard there! But in fussing over the low-hanging fruit and crying "See? Nonsense!" you might just be missing a deeper point which atheists like Albert Camus could see, and Christopher Hitchens, and that appreciation made their atheist critiques all the more satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 30, 2015 10:09:24 GMT 10
You are quick to berate pim, but consider how often I've been subject to a Ktj-slarti-Madmonk team up?
Three against one. Is that your idea of what's fair?
Let's keep it real. Please correct your behavior, before you judge and castigate pim for his.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 30, 2015 11:58:45 GMT 10
You are quick to berate pim... You got the punctuation wrong BTW ... It should be: "You are quick to berate, pim." Nope. The punctuation is fine, it's your perspective that's flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 30, 2015 12:03:33 GMT 10
As I've said previously, I give back what is dished out to me ... plus interest. If you want civil responses, be civil in the first place. That sounds a lot like excessive retaliation to me; a good teacher once admonished us to turn the other cheek. I think his methods were more pervasive and righteous than your current mentality. They were certainly more noble. If I am uncivil to you , and you retaliate; does that not put me in my right to return fire? When do you expect that to end? " Eye for an eye leaves the world blind" How about being civil despite the actions of others? You aren't responsible for other's actions; but you are responsible for how you react to them.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 1, 2015 6:37:20 GMT 10
And now my reply gets deleted. Welcome back to fascism where alternative views are verboten. To be honest slarti, I don't know how your reply got deleted. I was going to respond to it, and opted out of it at the last moment; cancelling my post. Perhaps in my haste, further alterations were made; I can neither confirm or deny, in good any conscience. If the damage was by my hand, I am sincerely sorry, it was never my intention. In any case, I'm glad you managed to save and re-post. Now to your question: It doesn't really justify your atheism, or atheism in general; neither does it invalidate theism. I won't answer your insincere question, because it's irrelevance forecasts your intention to make fun. I'm the better man by allowing it; and denying you the poison you crave. If you want to demonstrate that atheism is true, please stick to topics that justify your atheism. g'nite. Part 1: I accept your apology, I accidentally deleted an email the other day and it took me ages to find it, so I know mistakes can occur. Part 2: You not answering a simple question. For continuity, the question was: Tell us how penguins got onto Noah's ark.
Your reason for not answering is " It doesn't really justify your atheism, or atheism in general; neither does it invalidate theism. I won't answer your insincere question, because it's irrelevance forecasts your intention to make fun. I'm the better man by allowing it; and denying you the poison you crave.
If you want to demonstrate that atheism is true, please stick to topics that justify your atheism." What the? Que? Huh? I'm sorry, but your reason for not answering a seemingly simple question is just ridiculous. I would like to know how Theists explain these sort of events. According to your bible - Genesis 5:32-10-1 : The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. It was the inability of my religious teachers of being able to answer such a simple question that led me to believe that the Bible - and therefore Christian religion - was based on a bunch of lies and I converted to Atheism. I was hoping that you - being the alleged student of theism - might have an answer that my teachers didn't. Apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 1, 2015 6:43:43 GMT 10
As for how Pim treats my posts, yes, he seems to berate me far more than he berates Occam, but that just shows what I believe is insecurity in his alleged Agnosticism. From his posts, he is 99% Christian with 1% doubt.
A learned person like him does not appear to examine the obvious faults in the bible with an open mind, instead calling them low lying fruit.
I usually find that low lying fruit falls to the ground first and is often rotten.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 1, 2015 8:23:31 GMT 10
newstalkback1.proboards.com/post/78679/quote/4814Thanks for reposting all those old posts of mine. Quite a filing system you must have! If slarti finds he has a beef with me regarding any of those posts he's more than welcome to take them up with me. But I wont discuss with you any personal stuff regarding slarti and me that you allege. I'm sure you understand. One doesn't need a filing system to locate old posts of your's (or anybody else's). For a start, the group's inbuilt search engine can easily locate stuff like that. And you'd be amazed at what the likes of Google can dredge up when you put it to work trawling through a messageboard forum looking for topical posts by any particular member.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 10:46:23 GMT 10
As for how Pim treats my posts, yes, he seems to berate me far more than he berates Occam, but that just shows what I believe is insecurity in his alleged Agnosticism. From his posts, he is 99% Christian with 1% doubt. A learned person like him does not appear to examine the obvious faults in the bible with an open mind, instead calling them low lying fruit. I usually find that low lying fruit falls to the ground first and is often rotten. I think you mean low-hanging fruit. Different image! But hi slarti and thanks for coming into the exchange because it's really about you and me and not about Yorick. Can I make a couple of points? 1. I reject any suggestion that there are personal issues between you and me. I hasten to add that you haven't suggested that, these suggestions have been made by Yorick whose tone has become more strident to the point that he became downright offensive. But there you go. We all get a bit intemperate occasionally and I think this is one of those times when I just have to roll with the punches and move on. 2. Any dsagreement with you is about substantive points of debate, not personalities ... damn! I have to go. I'll get back to this when I can.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 1, 2015 11:45:30 GMT 10
To be honest slarti, I don't know how your reply got deleted. I was going to respond to it, and opted out of it at the last moment; cancelling my post. Perhaps in my haste, further alterations were made; I can neither confirm or deny, in good any conscience. If the damage was by my hand, I am sincerely sorry, it was never my intention. In any case, I'm glad you managed to save and re-post. Now to your question: It doesn't really justify your atheism, or atheism in general; neither does it invalidate theism. I won't answer your insincere question, because it's irrelevance forecasts your intention to make fun. I'm the better man by allowing it; and denying you the poison you crave. If you want to demonstrate that atheism is true, please stick to topics that justify your atheism. g'nite. Part 1: I accept your apology, I accidentally deleted an email the other day and it took me ages to find it, so I know mistakes can occur. Part 2: You not answering a simple question. For continuity, the question was: Tell us how penguins got onto Noah's ark.
Your reason for not answering is " It doesn't really justify your atheism, or atheism in general; neither does it invalidate theism. I won't answer your insincere question, because it's irrelevance forecasts your intention to make fun. I'm the better man by allowing it; and denying you the poison you crave.
If you want to demonstrate that atheism is true, please stick to topics that justify your atheism." What the? Que? Huh? I'm sorry, but your reason for not answering a seemingly simple question is just ridiculous. I would like to know how Theists explain these sort of events. According to your bible - Genesis 5:32-10-1 : The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. It was the inability of my religious teachers of being able to answer such a simple question that led me to believe that the Bible - and therefore Christian religion - was based on a bunch of lies and I converted to Atheism. I was hoping that you - being the alleged student of theism - might have an answer that my teachers didn't. Apparently not. Slarti, are you asking how theists respond, or how I would respond? They are not necessarily one in the same. I am a Christian, but I am still fallible, and I am still autonomous. Here is my disclaimer: Opinions of theists can be as diverse as those of atheists. And while I am not an accredited biologist, there exists biologists who have better explanations than a layman such as myself could provide. Ergo, I can't take your search for enlightenment all that seriously, when your deepest search for meaning has directed you to a common family man on a Australian discussion board; there are better places to look. -No offense to you, or myself, intended. If you want my personal take on the penguin issue: Short honest answer? I don't know for certain-- I wasn't there.☺ If you want my current best guess? I believe the pre-flood world had a very different climate than we now know. God has gave the animals an innate ability to adapt to changing conditions. (And they can adapt quickly if you've ever observed moths on various volcanic islands; a matter of a few years, actually.) And truth be told, so many animals have become extinct since that time, no one can really be certain from where they came, much less the locality of their ancestry. That is my best guess. I can only offer you an explanation, not certainty. Also, thank you for being so gracious about my (possible) faux pas. I'll admit that I didn't expect that. Maybe I was wrong about you.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 1, 2015 12:03:29 GMT 10
As I've said previously, I give back what is dished out to me ... plus interest. If you want civil responses, be civil in the first place. (Not intended to offend, but rather to bolster my point) You can't fix stupid by adding more stupid ... plus interest.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Dec 1, 2015 14:08:29 GMT 10
The Ark?
Was that when all of the world's glaciers melted at the same time and flooded the entire planet?
It must have been a HUGE ark to take two of every single living thing.
And I betcha each species of animal became inbred and as a result, defective, due to all of that inbreeding.
Yep....it's all a big fairytale alright, except for the gullible religionists who are LIVING their own fairytale inside their minds.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 14:11:18 GMT 10
As for the fairy-tale Ark story ... one cannot defend it and retain credibility. You're right if you take it literally as a historical record. Occam's post gives the impression that he accepts the Noah story as a historical record. If he does then this is where I part company from him. The Noah story bears a lot in common with Bronze Age myths from other cultures in that it describes a catastrophic flood event in the distant past. There is speculation that its origin may be the flood event caused by the formation of the Black Sea. So if an actual natural catastrophic flood event that was experienced by humans entered into folk memory and was mythologised in accordance with the evolving human culures of that geographical area (and beyond), does that mean the story has no value? I'd strongly dispute that it has no value. If it has no value then the creation stories of the Australian Aboriginal Dreaming have no value. Do I "believe" the creation myths of the Rainbow Serpent? No, of course not. But do I value these myths enough that I am sympathetic to Aboriginal people who object to mining companies coming onto their traditional land and whose practices violate and desecrate the Dreamtime-inspired relationship of the Aborigines to their tribal land? You bet I do! So does the fact that the mythological creation story of a given culture doesn't stack up as an objective and factual historical record therefore render it bullshit? No I don't believe it does. Because if it does then you'd also have to argue that Australian Aborigines should really forget about and let go of their maudlin "Dreamtime" sentimentality (without which the whole concept of native title would be meaningless) and just become good little black whitefellas. You'd be saying that Andrew Bolt is right. Clearly it's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If you fail to grasp that then you risk becoming one of those whitefellas about whom tha Aborigines during colonial times made this most devastating criticism: "White man got no Dreaming". Poor fella my country!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 14:45:47 GMT 10
And the function of poetry is ...?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 14:51:07 GMT 10
I'm not arguing, I've never argued, and I never will argue, that creation mythology of any culture should be taken literally. But by the same token I'd never argue that they were bullshit either. You seem to be arguing that "truth value" equals literal truth, only literal truth and nothing but literal truth. I reject the Noah story as factual history. But that doesn’t mean I dismiss it as valueless and with a truth value of zero.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 14:58:36 GMT 10
In part: to escape reality. You mean as entertainment? Yes of course there's no shortage of escapist literature. So are the works of Tolkien only escapist literature? They contain a lot of poetry. I'm not saying they aren't escapist and I am not saying that they aren't fantasy and therefore divorced from reality. But is that all that they are? Do they have no other value? What about the works of Milton: Paradise Lost? William Blake? Dante's Divine Comedy ? All escapist bullshit? Zero value?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 15:27:27 GMT 10
That's where we will always differ. You seem to argue that because something is "poetic" or "musical" or "artistic" that it justifies the myth behind it. Or, even that the myth behind the art is the sole cause of the art itself. Not at all. You're going into the nature of myth, art and poetry and for that much at least I'm grateful because it deepens the discussion. Myth arises out of oral tradition and for that reason it tends to be rendered in poetic form. Why poetic? Maybe the reason is more "prosaic" than we might think. Oral cultures commit their stories to memory. Rendering them as poetry helps the narrator. And just rememember this A myth is still a myth. A sigh is just a sigh .... as time goes by. Doesn't mean it has no value. Even the Bible doesn't deny that! "... and the earth was without form and void. And darkness was on the face of the deep." Sounds chaotic to me. Isn't a lot of myth about order being brought from chaos, and the end of all existence is the return of chaos? Yorick, please, change the record. Biblical literalists may talk in those terms, but you don't even have to be an agnostic or atheist to reject biblical literalism. It's been years now and "it's still the same old story". I get it!! You don't believe the bible is literally true! Newsflash : neither do I! Now we're staying with my brother and his wife on the central coast and I'm expected to do BBQ duties. Toodles!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 1, 2015 17:12:43 GMT 10
I spent a lot of time and effort composing a reply only to see it disappear when I was interrupted by a Skype message from a friend. I can't find the time/energy recomposing the post so I'll have to let it ride
|
|