Athiests

See what I mean Ekimlaw...

Ayn Rand is the most controversial philosopher of the twentieth century, and oviously not worthy of been picked on by inexperienced want to be's as the one Raithere, of which if he would have identified the objectivism philosophy and written books as Ayn Rand did, he would be a very rich man today.

Oviously this is not the case!!!!.


He can't even understand the simplicity of that statement "Existence exists"

Let's see if I can enlighten this weary mind.

*Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one percieves and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradictition in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciuosness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might aquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it "exists" and that you know it.

To exists is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was--no matter what his errors--the greatest of your philosophers, hsa stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. *Ayn Rand

Quote: Talk about presumptions. This is all assumed and, actually, there is evidence that all three of these assumptions are incorrect.

Show the freaking evidence then, don't just lead on and talk crap!.

Quote: Well, now he is equating the "supernatural" with "something beyond existence" which is not the meaning of supernatural. The supernatural is something beyond nature, not beyond existence. Obviously, if something supernatural existed it would exist. The supernatural refers to occurrences (if they truly occur or not) with causes beyond the natural or normal rules of nature. Otherwise theses occurrences are simply natural ones.

Boy have you got that one wron!!,

Supernaturalism: What is meant by "the supernatural"? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence-the sum of that which is. It is usually "nature" when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So "nature" really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with thier identities. What, then, is "super-nature"? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence-a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities-a something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short a contradiction of every metaphisical essential. Ayn Rand

Supernatural "Webster dic."
Existing or occurring outside the normal experience of knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god.

Supernatural "Oxford"
not attributable to, or explicable by the laws of nature; magical; mystical.

Quote: Reason is often flawed. Reason is limited by knowledge. Observation is our sole means of knowledge. One's reason is tested in the real world and is confirmed or denied by examination

Boy if you studied in America, I can see why a nine year old Jappanese child has the education of a High School senior.

If you have no reason how the hell would you know what the F*ck you were observing?.

Quote: You always have to love conclusions like this. Final word eh? Nothing more to be discussed? Utterly arrogant… and pure horseshit.

Yea!! horse shit comming out of your un-educated mentality!!.
 
Godless
Ayn Rand is the most controversial philosopher of the twentieth century, and oviously not worthy of been picked on by inexperienced want to be's as the one Raithere, of which if he would have identified the objectivism philosophy and written books as Ayn Rand did, he would be a very rich man today.

Oviously this is not the case!!!!.

Obviously I pissed you off. Your assumptions here are overwhelming. You have no idea who I am, what I have accomplished, or what my experience is. I find objectivism lacking. I find Rand to be a failure even within her own philosophy. Interesting and controversial, yes, but ultimately failing examination.

He can't even understand the simplicity of that statement "Existence exists"

I understand that it's a meaningless statement. A similar statement would be "A sphere is spherical." See… self referential and meaningless.

*Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: That something exists which one percieves and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

No such axioms were evident. Even so, I posit that all one can maintain is self and experience. External reality, however well evidenced, is never absolutely known. As one comes to understand certain principles and facts of relativity and quantum physics one learns that our perception is fundamentally flawed. We do not perceive reality… at least not at every level.

A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

Consciousness is self-awareness. All "other-awareness" is perception or experience.

If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciuosness.

So that those who hallucinate or are fooled by illusion do not possess consciousness? Hmmm… interesting.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might aquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it "exists" and that you know it.

Actually my consciousness could be the totality of existence and I'm just imagining everything…. but okay. For a moment, let's accept this concept of duality… "self" and "other". Now what?

Show the freaking evidence then, don't just lead on and talk crap!.

The existence of Virtual Particles voids at least two of the three assumptions. These particles come into and out of existence on their own.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/virtual_particles.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html

It is usually "nature" when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So "nature" really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with thier identities.

Ah… but the universe is not comprised of discrete entities and identity can not always be determined, the laws change... the Universe is not what Ann suspected.

"What, then, is "super-nature"? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence-a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities-a something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short a contradiction of every metaphisical essential. Ayn Rand

And I suppose that virtual particles, quantum entanglement, and superposition, are not "a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about … something that contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is"? Ann didn't obviously did not have an understanding of quantum physics… I would even be surprised if she had an understanding of relativistic physics or chaos theory. Physics has demonstrated that the Universe is not a concrete reality… there are mysteries here that defy our common perception. The universe is not a purely mechanistic device.

If you have no reason how the hell would you know what the F*ck you were observing?

Reason is a method by which we can explain our observation and test the veracity of our explanation (or belief) of that observation. Imagine a man with no senses but only reason… what exactly could he posit about the Universe and how would he verify his posits?

~Raithere

P.S. Dude were you one of Ann's infidelities or what? You seem a bit over excited.
 
Raithere..

No I'm not a total folower of Ayn Rand's Objecitivist philosophy, however you must keep in mind tht when she wrote this, much of what we know of nature was unknown. Yet it would seem impossible for her to have known as much as we do know today.

Basically it was her philosophy of which saved my life, I was lost a drug addict, drunk and of very low self esteem. Suitside was one of my fantasies of which I almost went through in my early teens.

Emotional, yes!! I've never heard of a book written by you on philosophy if that is the case come out with it!.

However to claim that her philosophy was a failure is totally ludicruous.

Ayn's philosophy was a contradiction of the norm, the norm being of the school of Plato's mystical philosophical teachings.

Ayn's philosophy is founded upon the teaching of Aristotle.

If I were to sit and tell you that the world has evolved around the basic principles of these two philosophers and that the one most chosen by governments, people, and organized religions is Plato's.

The United States is the only country in history to be founded upon the philosophical points of Aristotle. Many philosophers have come and gone, however they all have one thing in common, they either follow the school of Plato's basic principles or that of Aristotle. Ayn's was the most radical of these to come out of the school of Aristotle.
 
Raithere..
No I'm not a total folower of Ayn Rand's Objecitivist philosophy, however you must keep in mind tht when she wrote this, much of what we know of nature was unknown. Yet it would seem impossible for her to have known as much as we do know today.
…

Don't get me wrong… I find Rand's books excellent if a bit preachy. She also wins my "Best Book Title Ever" award with "Atlas Shrugged". I do think the Objectivist movement is important and has some valid points to it. The main problem with I have with it is the lack of compassion and the severity of action . In an ego dominated western society I find that this incredible focus on self is at the core of many, if not most, of our social problems. It is in this arena that I find Objectivism lacking. I also find the strictly mechanistic model of the Universe to be quite limiting and (as demonstrated by modern physics and mathematics) ultimately wrong. This, I agree, is due to her place in time… one might wonder what her philosophy would be in light of a chaotic and mysterious Universe.

Still I must say that statements such as "existence exists" are ultimately meaningless. Something exists or it does not… but to assume knowledge of the totality of existence is simply that… an assumption. She relies heavily upon this assumption in her philosophy... She disregards the unknown as if it were an unknown datum when history shows us that it is more likely to involve a paradigm shift of immense proportions and philosophical repercussions. What we label as the "Supernatural" is simply the unknown...

~Raithere
 
Pooyak

Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, no. "Acts of God" are specifically excluded from most policies.

And that's not a joke. One of the problems I have with the insurance industry, after spending three years supporting it with my labors, is that a home insurance policy is a rip-off. Take a look at most policies. The #1 threat to your home is usually covered by the basic policy. The #2 or #3 threats are generally excluded, and must be purchased separately. Terrorism and "acts of God" have generally been excluded from basic policies because of their rarity.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
originally said by Ekimklaw
Cris,

Of course, I personally believe that you made several errors in your reply to me. But responding at this stage would be repeating myself and a case of wheel-spinning. Therefore I will humbly bow out of this discussion with a courteous "Thank you", and leave the chips laying where they are. To coin a phrase, "we'll agree to disagree".

However, as usual, thanks for the lively debate. I think we both came out with our respective faiths intact.

And Cris, don't don't forget, we are attempting to convince the unconvinced, not vice versa.

Until next time...

-Mike
Click to expand...

Happy to please you :)
 
Used to be, at least

is there written exactly like that? "Acts of god' ?
Click to expand...
I think so. I know it used to be. I stopped paying attention to the policy wordings because it only upset me to read the policy structures.

But it used to come at the end of a line of exclusions:

• ... policy excludes earthquakes, floods, violent storms, acts of war, and acts of God ...

As a side note, what I think it was for was inexplicable phenomena. For instance, there are problems with 9/11 insurance policies. An act of terror is legally separated from an act of war, so the insurance companies tried denying the claim. (And then the guy who held the WTC policies filed a possibly-fraudulent claim ....)

But imagine that you come home and find your house gone. It apparently happened during the night. The neighbors (say you have acreage) didn't hear anything, yadda-yadda-yadda. It's demonstrably not fire, demonstrably not an explosion, seismic readings don't show an earthquake, and weather stations show no evidence of a tornado. If it gets filed under "I have no idea what happened", it gets excluded according to an "act of God".

I would think that some companies would get rid of this wording, but at least two of my family's home policies had Act of God exclusions.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
The main problem with I have with it is the lack of compassion and the severity of action . In an ego dominated western society I find that this incredible focus on self is at the core of many, if not most, of our social problems.
Click to expand...

No, it goes deeper than that. The problem is not that most of us are egocentric, it is that we are not egocentric ENOUGH, or that we don't know WHY we continue to be egocentric when all teachings state we should be otherwise. Ayn's characters are examples of "ideal men"... which means mostly, they don't exist.
They are TOO perfect. They expect equal value to be given for services rendered, and this doesn't happen outside of a marxist fairy tale (or, of course, a Randy :p one).

If you read Ayn Rand, she basically lays out all of the reasons why a COMPLETELY ego-driven society might be able to succeed. Unfortunately, the drawbacks are the same as with Marxist communism... as soon as you throw humans into the mix the theory becomes invalid. Even the characters in "atlass shrugged" RECOGNISE that while they have a service to render, something which they excel at, while being largely subordinate to the main characters who are the "prime movers", have a part to play and are HAPPY IN DOING SO, most people are not capable of this line of reasoning. Most humans will say "well, why can't I be a prime mover" and fail at excelling in what they do because they feel they deserve more, and should be rewarded BEYOND what they contribute.
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Still I must say that statements such as "existence exists" are ultimately meaningless. Something exists or it does not… but to assume knowledge of the totality of existence is simply that… an assumption. She relies heavily upon this assumption in her philosophy... She disregards the unknown as if it were an unknown datum when history shows us that it is more likely to involve a paradigm shift of immense proportions and philosophical repercussions. What we label as the "Supernatural" is simply the unknown...

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Right on Raithere...playing around with defintions means that the person who does it denies the definition has any meaning in the first place.

Supernatural = beyond existence?

Utter crap.

Good one Raithere.
 
Squid Vicious

No, it goes deeper than that. The problem is not that most of us are egocentric, it is that we are not egocentric ENOUGH, or that we don't know WHY we continue to be egocentric when all teachings state we should be otherwise. Ayn's characters are examples of "ideal men"... which means mostly, they don't exist.
They are TOO perfect. They expect equal value to be given for services rendered, and this doesn't happen outside of a marxist fairy tale (or, of course, a Randy one).

I still don't agree with it. While I can accept some fundamentals of her philosophy as they pertain to the economics of a society I find it to be a perfectly horrid manner of dealing with people on a personal or emotional level. How can one expect equal value for compassion or love or the saving of one's life?

Ayn's philosophy smacks of Social Dawinism… and fails to address the fundamental truth that we are not always in control of what happens to us or our ability to contribute.

What if Galt was dealt a severe blow to the head and became amnesiac before he ever had a chance to put his wonderful invention to paper? What then is his contribution? Ayn's philosophy seems to be that he should be dumped on the side of the road to fend for himself.

If you read Ayn Rand, she basically lays out all of the reasons why a COMPLETELY ego-driven society might be able to succeed. Unfortunately, the drawbacks are the same as with Marxist communism... as soon as you throw humans into the mix the theory becomes invalid.

I agree but I find it even more fundamental than that. I think that she ignores our most basic drives in her philosophy. The "ideal men" of her world are takers, not givers. They only give when they will receive proper compensation. The true Atlases of the world are those who give freely. The human race endures because of compassion not accomplishment.

Even the characters in "atlass shrugged" RECOGNISE that while they have a service to render, something which they excel at, while being largely subordinate to the main characters who are the "prime movers", have a part to play and are HAPPY IN DOING SO, most people are not capable of this line of reasoning.

And in this I can agree. American society in particular engenders an almost pathological greed… the desire for more than one needs and an basic lack of contentment.

~Raithere
 
Rait,

The "ideal men" of her world are takers, not givers. They only give when they will receive proper compensation. The true Atlases of the world are those who give freely. The human race endures because of compassion not accomplishment.
Click to expand...
I think you may have a pre-conception of compensation that is erroneous in this context.

I can reason that if I want people to be compassionate to me, i.e. something of benefit to me, then I know that I will have to be compassionate to others. In this sense the ‘proper compensation’ is compassion, and the ‘price’ I have paid is to be compassionate as a starting point. The result is an objectively based compassionate society.

Your concept of a true Atlas is that of a pure altruist. I don’t believe such people exist or if so then they are extremely rare. I would suggest that everyone only does something if there is a personal benefit involved. For example take the person who anonymously donates to charity. This would on the surface appear as a pure altruistic action. But really such a person achieves a real benefit in terms of emotional pleasure, feelings, and satisfaction of having done something that is perceived as good.

So what do you mean for someone to give freely? I challenge you to show any example where someone gives freely without an expectation of some compensation.

Objectivism is a call to true honesty of why we choose certain actions.

Cris
 
Raithere...

Now here is one who claims to have an education. Probably out of a cracker jack box college. To have completely misunderstood Ayn Rand's work.

Q:The "ideal men" of her world are takers, not givers. They only give when they will receive proper compensation. The true Atlases of the world are those who give freely. The human race endures because of compassion not accomplishment.

The "Ideal Men" of her world are the *GIVERS* not the takers, those individuals you will find in the church, and in politics and as well as big businesses, who ride the tide of pasts success. Explanation to an "untrained, uneducated mentality".

The ideal men are the inovators, they are the inventors, they are the movers, of society to create better lives and have abundance of jobs, in order for one to strive. i.e. Gerald Ford, Bill Gates, Dave Thomas, "Wendy's Restaurants founder", etc. Men of this caliver have given more than they have taken, men of this caliver is what she means by the "ideal men".

Ask yourself this: How do you expect for men to give, without first creating wealth in order to give. ? The men above create industries, which in turn gives, jobs, and good compensations to thousands. Who the hell benefited from Mohter Teresa on this scale?. She was a true alturist and all she did is take, take, and take more again. And appeared to be giving for the media.
 
Originally posted by Cris
I can reason that if I want people to be compassionate to me, i.e. something of benefit to me, then I know that I will have to be compassionate to others. In this sense the ‘proper compensation’ is compassion, and the ‘price’ I have paid is to be compassionate as a starting point. The result is an objectively based compassionate society.

While I do not disagree, I don't see this evident in Rand's works.

Your concept of a true Atlas is that of a pure altruist. I don’t believe such people exist or if so then they are extremely rare. I would suggest that everyone only does something if there is a personal benefit involved. For example take the person who anonymously donates to charity. This would on the surface appear as a pure altruistic action. But really such a person achieves a real benefit in terms of emotional pleasure, feelings, and satisfaction of having done something that is perceived as good.

Yes, I am familiar with this argument against altruism… but I don't find that it holds. The emotional pleasure we obtain from doing "good" is simply a feedback loop that helps drive the behavior. Much as the feeling of hunger helps drive us to seek food. Does this mean that hunger is non existant? While I agree that no one is a pure altruist, or they are at least very rare, most people have some amount of altruism in them.

Again, referring to the characters in her works I saw no such compassion or drive… I found them to be entirely self-serving. This fits in with the little I know of her personal life and character. She, her characters, and her philosophy are all egocentric. While this might lead to financial success it rarely leads to happiness. So, I suppose, it depends upon one's priorities.

So what do you mean for someone to give freely? I challenge you to show any example where someone gives freely without an expectation of some compensation.

The soldier who throws himself on top of a grenade to save his companions. The New York Firemen and Police who stayed in the towers even after the call came for them to leave. The parent who sacrifices their life for that of their child.

~Raithere
 
Re: Raithere...

Originally posted by Godless
Now here is one who claims to have an education. Probably out of a cracker jack box college.

Men of this caliver have given more than they have taken, men of this caliver is what she means by the "ideal men".

caliver - n. [Corrupted fr. caliber.] An early form of hand gun, variety of the arquebus; originally a gun having a regular size of bore. [Obs.] --Shak.

I believe you mean caliber:

caliber - n. 2. Degree of worth; quality: a school of high caliber; an executive of low caliber.

Enough said, I believe, about our relative education and intelligence. Why not try to stick to the argument and spare us the slander.

The "Ideal Men" of her world are the *GIVERS* not the takers, those individuals you will find in the church, and in politics and as well as big businesses, who ride the tide of pasts success.

Those who do not give without receiving are only traders, not givers. Her ideal men were not those who gave freely and received their due… they were men who said to the world "I will not give anything." and removed themselves from the world.

Ask yourself this: How do you expect for men to give, without first creating wealth in order to give. ?

Ah, so the measure of man is wealth… exactly what I expect from Rand's philosophy. So be it. If wealth is the measure of your life then you've indeed picked the correct philosophy. Personally, my idea of "Ideal Men" are DaVinci, Mozart, Ghandi, MLK… men who were less concerned with economics and compensation for their work than the work itself or other people.

Who the hell benefited from Mohter Teresa on this scale?.

You'll note that I did not include her above.

~Raithere
 
Couple of random points derived from this topic

First of all, whay do atheists write "xtianity". Are you too immature to write "Christ"?
Click to expand...
Technically, it's botched shorthand.

Christian = Xn
Christianity = Xnty

I don't understand "xtianity", it's a little self-defeating as a term; neither faithful to the word it stands in for, nor efficient as an abbreviation.

• • • • •

Also, as a side note, Ayn Rand has been turned into a political platform. For instance, if you go wandering through Capitalism.org, you'll find a "social system based on individual rights".

Not capitalism. Not an economic system.

A "social system" based almost solely on the writings of Ayn Rand.

(If anyone can find mention of Adam Smith at that site, let me know.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Rathiere, I realize that Godless attacked your level of education and thereby indirectly your intelligence but must we really resort to nitpicking in spelling. For heavens sake look at the relative position of v and b on a qwerty keyboard. I've seen way too many of these attacks on intelligence based on small spelling mistakes that are most likely typos. Surely there are more obvious faults in his writing where you don't have to resort to that?
 
Re: Re: Raithere...

Originally posted by Raithere
The "Ideal Men" of her world are the *GIVERS* not the takers, those individuals you will find in the church, and in politics and as well as big businesses, who ride the tide of pasts success.

Those who do not give without receiving are only traders, not givers. Her ideal men were not those who gave freely and received their due… they were men who said to the world "I will not give anything." and removed themselves from the world.

No Raithere... if you are referring to "Atlass Shrugged", they removed themselves because they gave without recieving recompense. We're not strictly talking about money here either.
Her ideal men were those who "gave" and expected to recieve their due for it. they did not, and therefore stopped giving. I think you missed one or two of the characters involved as well. there was a minor character, an actress, who personally i think Rand may not have known how to deal with (her character was very... underexplained, but her recompense was certainly not money, per se.). the character of Howard Roarke, from "The Fountainhead", certainly did not revolve around the accumulation of wealth. far from it. he forsook wealth in order to remain true to himself.

Ask yourself this: How do you expect for men to give, without first creating wealth in order to give. ?

Ah, so the measure of man is wealth… exactly what I expect from Rand's philosophy. So be it. If wealth is the measure of your life then you've indeed picked the correct philosophy. Personally, my idea of "Ideal Men" are DaVinci, Mozart, Ghandi, MLK… men who were less concerned with economics and compensation for their work than the work itself or other people.

No, it is not. Perhaps "givers" is not the correct word. What these men are doing is creating or contributing. They accumulate wealth only after having contributed something useful to society. Wealth is a by-product, not the object. I would also disagree with you on your "altruistic" examples. each of those men required something in return, whether it be a goal, accolades, or whatever. you appear to be stuck on this financial aspect, which is, as i have said, not a prime concern in Rand's philosophy.

Raithere, rather than arguing here with you i suggest you go back and read it again. Most of this is explained in several lentghy passages, and i've barely scratched the surface of what you seem to misunderstand about objectivism. you're right, "preachy" is an adequate description sometimes. However, you should not allow this to detract from your understanding of her philosophy. Bear in mind, she was born russian, english is her second language. I also find her philosophy lacking in it's totality, but this is no reason to ignore that parts of it which make perfect sense.
 
Come on, Angelus

Angelus

Come on ... what, there's no points for irony? Generally speaking, we at Sciforums have tried to be very good about leaving people to spelling and typographical errors. The only place it should really come up is if the error in some way clouds the issue being examined. (e.g. What happens if I get interrupted at the right point and omit the word "not" from an assertion of opinion? It's happened once recently, and nobody noticed, to be sure. I found that odd, but I'm not making any bones about it; I'm either happy that people understand such issues as typographical errors, or else slightly disturbed at the lack of reading that's taking place. Either people missed it altogether or else looked compassionately past it.)

However, there is an irony that comes when people are employing low attacks against someone's intelligence yet cannot present themselves correctly. Most days it wouldn't matter, but since education and performance are at issue--it's a quaint and satisfying irony.

I mean, I've been through an odd discussion in another topic where the people attempting to elevate the intellectual status of a concept had all manner of grammatical and spelling problems. In my own mind, I smiled quietly because it goes to serve my point. It's like someone writing the message, Wut do yew meen it's dum? Does that mean im dum? Im not dum how can yew tell me its stoopid caus its not stoopid. Your not being fare. (Yes, I've exaggerated grossly, but when one is appealing to intellectualism while making basic errors of grammar, spelling, or presentation, there is an undeniable irony afoot.)

It really is hard to resist, especially when the people stop to ask you if you think they're smart and you have to say, "Well, frankly ... no."

But aside from them actually asking, it seemed a better thing for me to leave it alone. Nonetheless, the irony kept me grinning the whole time.

two cents,
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top