On November 20 2017 10:16 Loco wrote:
There's nothing in there that demonstrates that it was the passing of the bill that was the main causal factor in their decision-making process. The bill is simply referenced by someone. But if that's the worst you can find as a negative consequence of the passing of C16 then that's a clear argument for the bill, considering how much suffering it actually prevented. That woman's had a rough couple days and she's now an internet hero and a pseudo-martyr, I'm not too worried about her, I think she'll be ok. I'm curious also why a Peterson video would find its way on a critical thinking curriculum? He's not a philosopher. And to choose such a delicate subject in order to teach critical thinking? It does seem a bit irresponsible to me. Are we to believe that she was truly neutral and didn't care whether people would become fans of Peterson or not? I find that a bit unlikely. I'd like to know which clip(s) she showed. If it was anything like his usual shtick of saying that every gender non conforming person who wants to be addressed by a specific pronoun is on the vanguard of a murderous ideology, then I'm ok siding with the university even though they have dealt with this quite poorly.
I also don't buy the whole "the university's purpose is to challenge yourself, therefore pretending like every idea has equal merit is necessary." You can challenge yourself every day without having to do that. Ironically, this is also exactly what Peterson was trying to do with his harassment campaign that seeks to destroy entire fields of study because he disapproves of them.
edit: So this article in VICE was just published on this story. I guess I'm largely in agreement there and a content warning would have been an acceptable compromise. I'm still skeptical that this woman is as innocent as she's made out to be. If she is, it sucks for her, but her recording of the conversation to be brought to journalists leads me to suspect she had an agenda.
Its not that the bill was the causaul factor of the decision process, but it gives more room for the already radicalizing ideas of the universities, and that is not the worst I can find, Ive posted before this, look it up.
Considering how much suffering it actually prevented? oh please!, all right show us all these cases, and please let them be good and many becuase you easily discarded this one, so lets see you back up your shit
Please link me to a specific video of JBP that you think should be banned and having teachers reprimeded for in Universities
It doesn't give the universities more room to introduce radical ideas, trans/queer rights are not radical, unless you're willing to argue that the Canadian Bar Association is also "in" on the post-modern Neo-Marxist cabal. You still haven't provided any evidence for this cabal's existence btw, defering to Chomsky was a pretty weak move. Chomsky just said that postmodern writings were meaningless from his perspective, not that there's a cabal that's fueled by resentment etc and that's corrupted academia. Also, I could just as easily defer to Chomsky to dismiss anarcho-capitalism and there I'd have a better reason to, since Chomsky never studied continental philosophy, his area was analytic philosophy. It'd be like going to Russell to understand Nietzsche. No need to put a stain on a great mind who is out of his area of expertise.
Even if C16 was radical or if it never passed, there is a Gendered and Sexual Violence school policy which it was claimed she didn't respect. If you actually read it, there is a defensible case to be made for them, so she would have been reprimanded anyway. Obviously this is some messy bureaucratic fuck-up and they also said she broke the law which is problematic. But yeah, this is a great win for Petersonites and free speech alarmists around the world. Shephard is probably just another (unfortunate) pawn for the culture war like Damore was. It's sad because people who opposed C16 act like it's a bad thing that this happened, but in reality they rejoice that they finally have something "big" (tears were shed!) that they can use as ammunition to show that "they were right all along".
You're asking me to show the cases of abuse that didn't occur as a result of C16 passing, really? You know that's damn well not possible. If you can't actually read the bill and see that it offers protection to these people, and understand that this in turn leads to a decrease in discrimination against them, then there's really nothing to discuss. The bill passed and I'm glad it did, so there's no reason for me to spend my time trying to convince people of its validity, it would be time that's really poorly spent.
I don't think any JBP video belongs in the classroom unless it's an educational video on a topic that he's knowledgeable about, so basically if it's a Jungian psychology class I guess. The question as to whether or not it should be banned if it's a polarizing political video, that's a lot trickier. I can think of better ways to deal with this problem than banning the content, e.g. informing the professors about the possible impacts of what the content might do to impressionable students if one remains completely neutral about it. I don't think it's a sensible thing to broadcast content and be neutral about it when it can alienate some of your students or contribute to their marginalization. And it's not about sheltering people from the ideas that exist out there in the world, it's about making use of the limited time you have in a classroom for good rather than spending it on conspiracy theories. Would you feel any different about this at all if it had been a Milo video?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
its radical to categorize the miss uses of pronouns as hate-speech, you still dont get it, its not a conspiracy, there are no leaders or conspirators, there werent a conspiracy for the rise of white nationalism in Germany it was a series of social conditions that were fertile ground for that kind of ideology to take over, more young people than ever are anti-capitalism than ever before in the US history, its an ideology not a conspiracy.
Laws are not effective deterrents, if so we wouldnt have crime, I can cite you many instances where laws against robbery have helped society in specific cases (all thieves in jail etc), so please give me an example where Bill C16 has been enforced for the good of society, if you dont have any I think you should stop claiming it saved soooo much suffering and tossing aside examples of where it was bad.
If you are discussing gender pronouns I think its vital that you share counter videos and discuss it with the classroom, about using Milo if you are talking about feminism yes I think its important to discuss his points and not avoid touching the subject because it might upset some women, otherwise Universities can preach whatever ideology they want without exposing their students to other ideas, you would feel very different if they only alowed the teachers to talk about Atlas Shrugged and never mention Engels because it might trigger some capitalist students.
What the bill actually does: makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federal regulated industry. It is now also a criminal offense to incite violence or hatred towards gender non conforming people.
What right-wing and (((centrist))) free speech warriors say it does: Nothing at all except preventing my free speech. Me me me me. Why aren't they concerned with my freedom! If I want to deliberately dehumanize people, I have every right to.
Of course it's a fucking conspiracy. I watched the video she presented in class, he specifically says in it that anyone who uses alternate pronouns, i.e. anything except "she" and "he" is part of a cabal of radical left-wing (Neo-Marxist) ideologues.
I told you that I can't prove a negative, it's impossible. We'll have to wait for the next transgender discrimination survey report and see what the stats look like so we can have an idea of what the bill actually did. Then we can weigh that against whatever damages it caused in the form of "silencing" people in positions of power on campus.
The class discussion wasn't even about gender or pronouns, she was using the video to discuss grammar! How stupid is that? And she's a TA, not a professor, she's not supposed to come up with her own personal material and present that, by-passing the professor. It's the professor's job to make the syllabus and as a TA she is hired to follow it.
I don't think your analogy with Rand and Engels is valid at all. To me presenting the controversial opinions of people like Milo and JBP from primetime TV in class as if it was just "another potentially valid view of the world" is more akin to presenting and being neutral about homeopathy and Reiki in medical school and phrenology in neuroscience.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
At like 9:40 in the first video the guy says something like "it all sounds so good but I don't understand any of it" and the other guy replies "yeah, I don't either." About sums it all up from what I've heard of the following speakers as well. This is a pretty big downgrade from Alan Watts dude. For some reason millenials just can't get non-duality right, they always have to bring a New Age baggage along with it. I was just waiting for them to start talking about crystals after they brought up the energy talk. No offense meant towards you longple, I just think there is way better material to understand non-duality than this.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 05 2017 22:33 Loco wrote:
At like 9:40 in the first video the guy says something like "it all sounds so good but I don't understand any of it" and the other guy replies "yeah, I don't either." About sums it all up from what I've heard of the following speakers as well. This is a pretty big downgrade from Alan Watts dude. For some reason millenials just can't get non-duality right, they always have to bring a New Age baggage along with it. I was just waiting for them to start talking about crystals after they brought up the energy talk. No offense meant towards you longple, I just think there is way better material to understand non-duality than this.
Thats kind of it, you think theres something to understand, there is no such thing as better, or understanding. Energy is a word, trying to describe something, obviously there is no such thing as energy.
If this is judged as new age, there seem to be a pretty clear idea of what this is. For some reason it plases me tho that theres sceptisism about new age, wich seems to be nothing but extreme spiritual materialism. Gary weber (2nd video) I stumbled upon through Sam Harris. (Useing as a carrot to reel you in with my apperant agenda, hehe)
Don't buy into all the spiritual stuff imo just another control mechanism people have dropped christianity and now they are bringing in the hocus pocus probably a more sinister force. The vast majority of it is just you submitting your thoughts to a guru who has ultimate authority on reality because he is somehow better than you.
If there was anyway to achieve enlightenment or whatever in my view if it is supernatural then it should happen on its own not by reading other peoples thoughts taking drugs and self hypnotizing. Or if it's not supernatural then going with your own thoughts actions etc. would be better imo. Be very careful about accepting this stuff and at least use the alchemists balance thingy.
One new age obviously mkultra project called a course in miracles is unfortunately my dad has been heavily into it for a few years it says pretty standard stuff like not having an ego and becoming a defenseless blob of spirituality (ok cant remember quite what it was right now) but I've read about the guy Thetford who co wrote the damn thing was part of Mkultra and schuchman wrote from the perspective of jesus its so stupid I dont know why he believes it but I've read on the internet that it can have negative consequences after a while because they do daily lessons that just fuck with your brain and they can't hold conversations and shit.
Here it's explained how actual real magic is used in society today like the federal reserve being a supernatural institution these are the real magicians pretty good stuff
On December 05 2017 22:33 Loco wrote:
At like 9:40 in the first video the guy says something like "it all sounds so good but I don't understand any of it" and the other guy replies "yeah, I don't either." About sums it all up from what I've heard of the following speakers as well. This is a pretty big downgrade from Alan Watts dude. For some reason millenials just can't get non-duality right, they always have to bring a New Age baggage along with it. I was just waiting for them to start talking about crystals after they brought up the energy talk. No offense meant towards you longple, I just think there is way better material to understand non-duality than this.
Thats kind of it, you think theres something to understand, there is no such thing as better, or understanding. Energy is a word, trying to describe something, obviously there is no such thing as energy.
If this is judged as new age, there seem to be a pretty clear idea of what this is. For some reason it plases me tho that theres sceptisism about new age, wich seems to be nothing but extreme spiritual materialism. Gary weber (2nd video) I stumbled upon through Sam Harris. (Useing as a carrot to reel you in with my apperant agenda, hehe)
None taken, enjoy!
There is something to understand otherwise there wouldn't be thousands of books on it and people still making videos about it. Even if it's only to say that it's impossible to understand intellectually, that is also a form of understanding. There is a whole topic in philosophy of religion on this called apophatic theology or negative theology. We're always using words to try to convey meaning -- to improve our understanding, whether through affirmative speech or negation. Unfortunately when this subject is brought up or appropriated by New Agers, it's perverted and diluted -- like a medicinal plant that is turned into homeopathy. Their thinking is just too superficial to do justice to those age old concepts.
I've said already that I used to have strong monist leanings. I was very interested in the Stoics, Buddhism and Vedanta when I first got into philosophy, and later on Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Jung, who all believed in dual-aspect monism. Now I believe that even in this form it is flawed, incomplete. Monism/dualism is a false dichotomy like reductionism and holism in systems thinking. The whole is certainly more than the sum of its parts, but the whole is not the only thing relevant to know. Just like you cannot reduce the whole to its parts, the parts cannot be reduced to the whole.
It's funny to hear embodied living beings with an ego, argue that the ego is not real, of no value, from their ego (they can pretend all they want that they have transcended it -- it matters not). The ego is not just something to be rid of in order to "see reality for what it truly is". The same is true at all levels of reality: there is a dialogical (antagonistic, concurrent and complementary) relationship between the one and the multiple, between unity and diversity. Take the first "documentary" you linked: multiple people are there to give their opinions on non-duality. Why is that? Because diversity is valued by the film-maker, otherwise they would make the film themselves and not seek the views of people with different personalities and perspectives. There are obvious things that unite us all, but there are always differences as well, we cannot exclude one or the other.
I don't really have any interest in Sam Harris or the people/things that he's interested in. I've listened to his podcast two or three times in 2017. I haven't personally found anything of value in his work. His understanding of free will and morality are pretty bad. I'm glad he's getting people interested in altruism, vegetarianism and meditation and that's pretty much it. He's an entry-level thinker, not someone that's on the forefront of ideas. It's helpful to find these people when you're just getting interested in intellectual subjects, but after a while they have nothing more to contribute to your knowledge base. It's just like with music: if you're into metal you might start listening to Disturbed and Slipknot when you're a teenager but at some point it just doesn't do the trick and you need something more mature, substantial and complex.
I am most definitely not a materialist or a "spiritual materialist" (whatever that may be). Here's a lecture (with an introduction by a friend of mine) that goes into some of my views. It's a lot more nuanced than a typical materialistic view, it opposes eliminative materialism though it is compatible with physicalism. I know it's going to be difficult material for people here but I figure it's worth posting anyway.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Wow, this is nuts. I say I have no interest in Harris' work and a few hours later he publishes a podcast with Benatar. I'm kind of amazed. I did not think he would bring this topic to the mainstream. He just went up a bit in my book.
For those who don't know, this is currently the most famous philosopher who advocates for antinatalism, which I've argued for multiple times here. I disagree with him on some points and I am personally not enamored with analytic philosophy, but I still have a lot of respect for the guy. Going to have a listen to this now. The title of the podcast is a bit misleading, or at least it should be, since antinatalism isn't primarily concerned with the meaning of life/meaning in life.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 07 2017 12:55 Loco wrote:
Wow, this is nuts. I say I have no interest in Harris' work and a few hours later he publishes a podcast with Benatar. I'm kind of amazed. I did not think he would bring this topic to the mainstream. He just went up a bit in my book.
For those who don't know, this is currently the most famous philosopher who advocates for antinatalism, which I've argued for multiple times here. I disagree with him on some points and I am personally not enamored with analytic philosophy, but I still have a lot of respect for the guy. Going to have a listen to this now. The title of the podcast is a bit misleading, or at least it should be, since antinatalism isn't primarily concerned with the meaning of life/meaning in life.
halfway through the podcast I have to say that on the asymmetry argument I'm cautiously siding with Harris, perhaps I'm not getting something. I'll def listen to the rest of it when I can, very interesting discussion
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Thanks for the videos and posts Loco, I must admit theres enjoyment and respect reading your posts. Love it, write books! Write write write! (Not makeing fun here, btw) I listened to all of it, except the full Sam Harris podcast, that was boreing the shit out of me after a while. Whats insane to me is that there is this assumption in all of this that there is such a thing as a me, or that there actually are "things". Or existence, or consciousness or what ever. What if thats just that, an assumption/dream? (just words but you get the idea) Id say that spirituality, science, religion, even almost all of non dual spirituality is so non dual and all the same "thing" (duuh, obviously). Say that there is such a thing as a universe, or this, or everything/nothing. Then thats it. Not consciousness + universe. Theres just UNIVERSE, or conscioussness. Dont really like that tho, calling it awareness/conscioussness as its extremely missleading and kind of cruel, in the realm of cruelness. That is the definition of the dream, imo. That there is such a thing as a subject, or I AMness. Watching the ego. lol
Based on the dream of something, just a belief-structure one could say even tho in science its starting to comfirm this that they dont know what the smallest thing is made out of, still that dosnt stop assumeing that there are things, or that there is any substance to anything. Its all insane and non-insane. Theres nothing that can be known, not even existance or being or I am or awareness or not knowing. How could anything be known? What is REAL knowing? Or REAL understanding.
Idk why Im doing this, to be honest. In the story one might say that its compassion, or confusion but that would be bullshit. CONFUSED NON-CONFUSED COMPASSIONLESS COMPASSION Its just surpriceing and extremely funny somehow. That this is.
I love your apperant sceptisism about nondual spirituality, sceptisism (y) . But id invite you one more time to listen to some of these none speakers, not to get anything or understand anything. It is still what seems to be happening, and what seems to be wanted, for me to be here, posting this and informing, shareing. Just awesome and utterly unawesome.
If you tell me to bogger off Ill most likely do that after this tho, give it a full go.
Id like to add that reading myself is the most insane almost, thats when I want to heave myself out of the window. Im just like one of these people that comments and argues on youtubevideos.
You are confused because your minds are in overdrive, there are many belief systems, but one reality underlying it all. It's like your mind is a mirror and your thoughts are obstructing the view, no wonder you can't see your true nature.
On December 07 2017 20:53 napalm wrote:
You are confused because your minds are in overdrive, there are many belief systems, but one reality underlying it all. It's like your mind is a mirror and your thoughts are obstructing the view, no wonder you can't see your true nature.
On December 07 2017 12:55 Loco wrote:
Wow, this is nuts. I say I have no interest in Harris' work and a few hours later he publishes a podcast with Benatar. I'm kind of amazed. I did not think he would bring this topic to the mainstream. He just went up a bit in my book.
For those who don't know, this is currently the most famous philosopher who advocates for antinatalism, which I've argued for multiple times here. I disagree with him on some points and I am personally not enamored with analytic philosophy, but I still have a lot of respect for the guy. Going to have a listen to this now. The title of the podcast is a bit misleading, or at least it should be, since antinatalism isn't primarily concerned with the meaning of life/meaning in life.
halfway through the podcast I have to say that on the asymmetry argument I'm cautiously siding with Harris, perhaps I'm not getting something. I'll def listen to the rest of it when I can, very interesting discussion
So, the main hang up people have with the asymmetry is over the goodness of an absence, due to the non-identity problem. This graph illustrates the problem:
That's what's not intuitive, because we associate the goodness of a thing to who has benefited from it. But we don't really need to posit that benefit to someone, it is enough to say that the prevention of a harm is a good. Benatar has dealt with this criticism and he claims that people mistakenly assume that the asymmetry presents itself as being logical rather than axiological and that he's making a personal evaluation when it is in fact impersonal. There's a blogger who goes into detail here, it should help you understand Benatar better: http://demonsanddiscourses.blogspot.c...hon-of-post-insert-title-here-to.html
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 07 2017 20:16 longple wrote:
Thanks for the videos and posts Loco, I must admit theres enjoyment and respect reading your posts. Love it, write books! Write write write! (Not makeing fun here, btw) I listened to all of it, except the full Sam Harris podcast, that was boreing the shit out of me after a while. Whats insane to me is that there is this assumption in all of this that there is such a thing as a me, or that there actually are "things". Or existence, or consciousness or what ever. What if thats just that, an assumption/dream? (just words but you get the idea) Id say that spirituality, science, religion, even almost all of non dual spirituality is so non dual and all the same "thing" (duuh, obviously). Say that there is such a thing as a universe, or this, or everything/nothing. Then thats it. Not consciousness + universe. Theres just UNIVERSE, or conscioussness. Dont really like that tho, calling it awareness/conscioussness as its extremely missleading and kind of cruel, in the realm of cruelness. That is the definition of the dream, imo. That there is such a thing as a subject, or I AMness. Watching the ego. lol
Based on the dream of something, just a belief-structure one could say even tho in science its starting to comfirm this that they dont know what the smallest thing is made out of, still that dosnt stop assumeing that there are things, or that there is any substance to anything. Its all insane and non-insane. Theres nothing that can be known, not even existance or being or I am or awareness or not knowing. How could anything be known? What is REAL knowing? Or REAL understanding.
Idk why Im doing this, to be honest. In the story one might say that its compassion, or confusion but that would be bullshit. CONFUSED NON-CONFUSED COMPASSIONLESS COMPASSION Its just surpriceing and extremely funny somehow. That this is.
I love your apperant sceptisism about nondual spirituality, sceptisism (y) . But id invite you one more time to listen to some of these none speakers, not to get anything or understand anything. It is still what seems to be happening, and what seems to be wanted, for me to be here, posting this and informing, shareing. Just awesome and utterly unawesome.
If you tell me to bogger off Ill most likely do that after this tho, give it a full go.
I'd like to write but I feel like I'm way too late. I started reading too late in life and have too much catching up to do. And even there, it's one thing to have read a lot, it's a whole other thing to have a writer in you and to be able to get published in the ultra competitive world we live in. I'm not competitive and disciplined so I wouldn't make it in that environment. Nothing stops me from being a blogger though and I've done some video essays with some success, so that'll probably be where I spend my efforts in the future.
I also was disappointed and thought the Harris podcast was boring, but I always think that. Sam bores me, and I also said Benatar's latest book bored me a few months ago, and unfortunately Sam made almost the entire podcast about the content in that book. That said, I love that the subject of procreation ethics and anti-natalism is getting mainstream attention, even if he wasn't entirely fair to it. It's an incredibly important topic, and even though I think Sam Harris might just be too irredeemably naive and optimistic to understand the risks and harms he's defending, I still applaud him for dealing with the topic on his podcast.
I am also of the opinion that "there is no substance to anything", but I think we have different reasons to hold this position. I'm a non-foundationalist and a radical constructivist, so I don't believe there is an independent reality outside of us, which appears the way that it appears to us even once we remove the observer, and I don't believe there is a solid ground for objective knowledge on which we can be 100% secure and build from. I believe reality exists not as a substance, but as a process that is co-constructed, or co-arises, through an interdependent process between subject <---> object. This is a branch of philosophy called process philosophy, which dates as far back as Heraclitus in the West. In the East, Nagarjuna qualifies as a process philosopher and non-foundationalist, the second most important and influential Buddhist philosopher after Gautama Buddha. I think I've brought him up before.
I understand why you want me to watch these videos. I can assure you that I would not benefit from them or get some special insights. I have looked into Gary Weber and found he is a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi. I've told you in the past that I am very familiar with this philosophy. I have read the Talks with Ramana Maharshi a decade ago. It had a profound impact on me, but it no longer "seduces" me. My experience with it was not positive and it led to (or compounded on) a lot of issues in my life which I mistakenly thought would be solved through this philosophy. I have moved on from this non-dual pursuit a long time ago. I wish you the best of luck with it all, but I strongly believe this is not a philosophy that can be lived in the Western world, I have tried it with no success. I did gain a great sense of awareness and an ability to not be stuck in self-obsessing thinking loops from the meditative practices. I just don't believe in the pursuit of the dissolution of the ego or "liberation" which is ultimately what these gurus are all trying to sell. I'm committed to embracing the one and the many, mindfulness and compassion.
Edit: I just remembered my friend Corey and I have similar concerns with non-duality and I remember a few years back he had a conversation with a prominent Western non-dualist on his YouTube channel. I just found it again. You might enjoy their discussion. From my point of view, he tried too hard to refrain from being critical and it's a shame.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 07 2017 20:53 napalm wrote:
You are confused because your minds are in overdrive, there are many belief systems, but one reality underlying it all. It's like your mind is a mirror and your thoughts are obstructing the view, no wonder you can't see your true nature.
Theres just one question.
Is that true?
Millionaire tells you, that the reasons he is abundant and rich are all internal, his relationship with money, the way he feels about it and himself inspire him to take the right action.
The poor person asks him if it's true, he says yes its true, if poor person does nothing, this mere answer is not enough to make him rich. If you want to be rich you have to go within and figure it out yourself. Steady Self-awareness is key, intellect can guide you initially but cant touch it.
On December 07 2017 20:53 napalm wrote:
You are confused because your minds are in overdrive, there are many belief systems, but one reality underlying it all. It's like your mind is a mirror and your thoughts are obstructing the view, no wonder you can't see your true nature.
Theres just one question.
Is that true?
Millionaire tells you, that the reasons he is abundant and rich are all internal, his relationship with money, the way he feels about it and himself inspire him to take the right action.
The poor person asks him if it's true, he says yes its true, if poor person does nothing, this mere answer is not enough to make him rich. If you want to be rich you have to go within and figure it out yourself. Steady Self-awareness is key, intellect can guide you initially but cant touch it.
If you want richness and happiness or getting something like selfawareness asking if its true is absolutely worthless.
Completely agree with you on that point, and theres not a trying to make fun of you here at all. I absoutely agree, if you want selfawareness or richness truth is potentially the absolute worst thing to go for.
Asking if its true is aiming for truth (even if its completely hopeless) and not richness or happiness.
Asking if its true, probably has a hidden agenda or hope that it will give happiness and richness tho most likely. Thats what the individual wants, very innocently. Its not wrong, obviously!
@Loco, leaving the country this afternoon, will probably not find an response for a few days.
And thank you, same to you!
Sweden. Dec 05 2017 13:49. Posts 4472
