posted
Pastafarianism skips the whole inevitable parody thing by starting out as a parody, one designed from the start to illustrate the ridiculousness of intelligent design proposals by christians trying to wedge religious teachings back into schools.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If that were the only context I had to think about the Mormons, I'd think they were pretty whacked out.
In addition, when you sit someone with no prior estimations or specific knowledge of mormonism down and describe for them what mormonism is, what its history is, and what mormons believe and how they're supposed to live, right down to the funny little details about how the garden of eden turns out to have been in jackson county, MO, you get the same thing. You could do the same for a lot of other frankly bizarre movements. Like the ultra-orthodox jews. Or the pentecostal glossolaliacs. Or La Iglesia de la Santa Muerte. Or Freezone. Or the Unification Church.
Depends on who's doing the explaining, obviously.
Given those conditions, I might be able to make Mormonism seem not so bizarre.
I must say I'm interested in what bizarreness you do, Samp. I do hope some of it is channeled into writing books. I'd love to read a book you write.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife ...
Personally, as an atheist, I wouldn't really find those things fundamentally bizarre (at least not more so than more mainstream Christians). The things that make it more bizarre for me would be things like the account of ancient events taking place in the Americas (and another visit by Jesus), the posthumous baptism thing, that we are close enough (in time) to the founding of the religion to have a good idea of how things came about, etc.
This isn't to invite debate on whether these things are actually more bizarre than other religious practices, but just to explain what I find more fundamentally bizarre than a number of other religions.
That's interesting Mucus. I should think post-humous baptism would resonate with your understand of Chinese religion, where many times a year people burn money, and offer up food so as to take care of their ancestors. Not to mention the belief that a king or nobleman needed to have his wifes, servents, and other courtesans buried alive with him, so that he could retain their services. That last belief didn't completely die out until the Qing dynasty collapsed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife ...
Personally, as an atheist, I wouldn't really find those things fundamentally bizarre (at least not more so than more mainstream Christians). The things that make it more bizarre for me would be things like the account of ancient events taking place in the Americas (and another visit by Jesus), the posthumous baptism thing, that we are close enough (in time) to the founding of the religion to have a good idea of how things came about, etc.
This isn't to invite debate on whether these things are actually more bizarre than other religious practices, but just to explain what I find more fundamentally bizarre than a number of other religions.
I gotta say I'm curious why that particular set of beliefs is stranger than those of mainstream Christianity for you. From an atheist's standpoint, doesn't the bizarre start with belief in Christ as a divine being? From that point on, I would think every other belief would be in one big bag of bizarre.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I should think post-humous baptism would resonate with your understand of Chinese religion, where many times a year people burn money, and offer up food so as to take care of their ancestors.
Short answer: However, those practices are considered to be bizarre and "mock"-worthy by fairly mainstream culture as reflected by, off the top of my head, a parody of the practice in a Stephen Chow film two decades ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihuMIpJ6vpA&t=12m25s
So if we were mocking a similar practice two decades ago, I think a current similar foreign practice should be fair game.
Long answer:
<snipped because I got tired>
The long answer would probably entail something about disagreeing that the former practice is a component of Chinese religion, but of Chinese superstition (in the non-derogatory sense). Also, how the superstitions and the fall of the Qing were not related. Also it would probably comment on how components of the movements that brought down the Qing (such as May 4th, the KMT, and writers such as Lu Xun) were explicitly criticizing such "feudal" superstitions a century ago. Also, the mechanism of hell money is more similar to general process of interacting with the dead who believed as you do, whether that involves leaving flowers, leaving out bread, or prayers. The mechanism of posthumous baptism involves interaction with dead who didn't believe as you do, which I find pushes "the boundary."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I gotta say I'm curious why that particular set of beliefs is stranger than those of mainstream Christianity for you.
Just speaking for myself, I don't think "magic underwear" and the pseudo-doctrinal belief that God has a wife are any weirder than, say, driving demons into pigs and pushing them off cliffs, the avatar of God zapping a tree for not fruiting properly, or sending a bear to maul some teenagers for making fun of a bald guy.
Religion is incredibly wacky. I don't think there's any way to dispute that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: From an atheist's standpoint, doesn't the bizarre start with belief in Christ as a divine being? From that point on, I would think every other belief would be in one big bag of bizarre.
Well, so many religions have divine beings, it wouldn't really make sense (for me anyways) to classify so many religions as bizarre.
If you think of a scale of "bizarre" as "improbability" then you might get an idea of what I'm trying to communicate here. A creator in general is improbable to us. A creator with a son named Jesus is more improbable than a creator in general. As you layer on the specific claims about specific places and dates, such as the aforementioned specific location of the Garden of Eden or two visits by Jesus rather than one, the whole thing gets more and more improbable*.
* Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress.
One might observe that this is pretty much what happens. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:* Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress
ROFL
quote:Just speaking for myself, I don't think "magic underwear" and the pseudo-doctrinal belief that God has a wife are any weirder than, say, driving demons into pigs and pushing them off cliffs, the avatar of God zapping a tree for not fruiting properly, or sending a bear to maul some teenagers for making fun of a bald guy.
Religion is incredibly wacky. I don't think there's any way to dispute that.
Everything is wacky, depending on the context.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: But with the burning of money, I don't think I've ever heard it said either yes or no that the money one burns only benefits ancestors who believe it would. I'm sure you agree that there were probably atheists and areligious folks in China who now have decendents offering food and money to them every holiday at the local miao.
As for it being "mock"worthy, Stephen Chow is from Hong Kong, as far as I can tell in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, doing those things is still very much the norm. But I can see how doing post homous things for those we are not related to is a step removed from all that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Depends on who's doing the explaining, obviously.
Given those conditions, I might be able to make Mormonism seem not so bizarre.
I must say I'm interested in what bizarreness you do, Samp. I do hope some of it is channeled into writing books. I'd love to read a book you write.
Ha! Funny you should mention.
But at any rate the generally worst impression you get is from ex mormons who like to gather up with other ex mormons and talk about growing up mormon and talk and talk about how it is an evil controlling cult and blah blah blaaaaaaah
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
So I just watched a recording and while overall it was humorous, the ending left me feeling slightly angry. This isn't an ode to faith nor an ode to lack of faith- it's a tribute to deliberate ignorance. It's not just saying "religions are goofy but still do good". It's saying embrace the goofiness- knowing full well it's not real- and you'll be better off. If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates. This embracing the goofy suggestion is something I've encountered in real people, and while I disagree, I can respect that those people actually do it. Matt Stone and Trey Parker certainly don't.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates.
It's worth noting that I mostly but not entirely agree with you. That said, I think it can be definitively said that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have certainly "embraced the goofy," even if their personal versions of goofy aren't traditional, established religions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it can be definitively said that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have certainly "embraced the goofy," even if their personal versions of goofy aren't traditional, established religions.
Ha ha, fair enough. But that's more a nitpick of my word choice. They seem to live and espouse truth as they see it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
You're the one who said everything is wacky.
I meant that anything is ripe for satire, as long as you find someone who regards it as holy. Religion doesn't have exclusive rights to that. If you have your heart on your sleeve for something, it's fair game.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
So I just watched a recording and while overall it was humorous, the ending left me feeling slightly angry. This isn't an ode to faith nor an ode to lack of faith- it's a tribute to deliberate ignorance. It's not just saying "religions are goofy but still do good". It's saying embrace the goofiness- knowing full well it's not real- and you'll be better off. If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates. This embracing the goofy suggestion is something I've encountered in real people, and while I disagree, I can respect that those people actually do it. Matt Stone and Trey Parker certainly don't.
I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
I applaud the ending for showing the different faces of faith. The non-literalists like the Africans who believed the stories are metaphor not fact and yet still saw the value in them. Or there's Elder Price who was struggling with his belief, not unlike Mother Teresa who did good works despite her unsure faith.
The elders' superiors wanted the missionaries stop teaching a variation of the faith and return home, rather than admit that a poverty and aids stricken village could not be preached to the same way that missionaries would preach to someone in Orlando, Florida.
For anyone interested, here's some of Elder Price's realization speech. Not a particularly inspiring speech but it includes most of the musical's lessons.
"Its like you're getting the point across using modern things...You were trying to teach me something. Here I thought I could just fly in here, all on my own and change everything just by sticking to scripture. While you were trying to show me that scripture isn't that important. I was losing my faith and you went out and did something incredible. You did something incredible for people with nowhere else to go. I thought they were unreachable. But then they were happy and hopeful."
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
Would you feel comfortable laughing about Jews strapping "magic boxes" to their heads or Navahos making "magic sand paintings" or the Inuit making "magic totem poles" or Australian aborigines having "magic dreams"?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for it being "mock"worthy, Stephen Chow is from Hong Kong, as far as I can tell in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, doing those things is still very much the norm.
I don't know about the norm, especially with the younger generation, but its not strictly important either. Superstitions like kissing under mistletoe, avoiding 13th floors, and horoscopes are pretty popular here too although many of the people who do it fully acknowledge that it doesn't really make sense and are basically resigned to it being mocked/not taken seriously by others.
The popularity of a custom isn't necessarily reflective of how wacky it is.
quote:But I can see how doing post homous things for those we are not related to is a step removed from all that.
I agree. That is probably a more clear distinction.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all wacky things are equally wacky, of course. Totem poles, for example, are less wacky than underwear but more wacky than sand paintings. Magic boxes are slightly more wacky than underwear, IMO.
I also think the degree of perceived wackiness can change over time. Consider "magic underwear," which really is just another version of the traditional enchanted vestment. The reason it's perceived as wacky in the modern era is that they're also deliberately dowdy, Victorian-esque undies that have as an ancillary (or arguably primary) effect a bit of a chastity/modesty reminder, and don't appear to have any actual, measurable protective benefit. The "underwear" bit is what makes them inherently more humorous than, say, the Jewish inability to open certain refrigerators on Saturday, although obvious circumstances can sway this in either direction; while everything is funnier with monkeys, it is possible for something with a monkey to still be less funny than something else.
Consider the wackiness levels of these different vestments: 1) a red sash tied around your upper arm; 2) a red sash tied around your upper arm, worn prominently over all other clothing; 3) a red sash tied across your upper thigh; 4) a red sash tied across your genitals; 5) a red sash worn as a Rambo-style headband. Are they all equally wacky? Do they become wackier if, when wearers don the sash, they now have to loudly declare that they are girding their loins for battle with the evils of the world -- even if they're tying it around their foreheads?
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
Would you feel comfortable laughing about Jews strapping "magic boxes" to their heads or Navahos making "magic sand paintings" or the Inuit making "magic totem poles" or Australian aborigines having "magic dreams"?
I was trying to be ironic there. Some people seem to feel justified in mocking things of this nature. I certainly don't feel this way. Sorry I came off sounding the opposite.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
If Christ was real and divine and had an outline of how we should live- wouldn't that matter and be useful to know? I'm also an atheist, but when I wasn't, I cared about belief in things that I thought were real and were important because they were real. I think those that believe for the comfort and moral teachings are really doing so because their family/community believes. That type of belief is ultimately empty and uninspiring and I think can only exist as an auxiliary to real belief. Most people believe because they think it's real. I think trying to make the supplemental the fundamental is taking an external perspective to religion and does a disservice to those who believe in it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
If Christ was real and divine and had an outline of how we should live- wouldn't that matter and be useful to know? I'm also an atheist, but when I wasn't, I cared about belief in things that I thought were real and were important because they were real. I think those that believe for the comfort and moral teachings are really doing so because their family/community believes. That type of belief is ultimately empty and uninspiring and I think can only exist as an auxiliary to real belief. Most people believe because they think it's real. I think trying to make the supplemental the fundamental is taking an external perspective to religion and does a disservice to those who believe in it.
I agree. I was going to post, but you said everything that I thought of, and better than I likely would have expressed it. Thanks.
quote:I was trying to be ironic there.
I thought you were. So, you weren't trying to be ironic, you were ironic. Worked rather well. Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
It's because they look and feel (yes I'm groping them) like walking anachronisms, as if they were trained dutifully via a program/system that hasn't changed notably since before my mom was born. Children of the mst3k shorts, maybe. Lovable little scamps.
It reminds me of that commercial where the guy pulls into a full service gas station and freaks out and thinks he's being carjacked.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
QFT.
It seems that people in the church's missionary department (I know one of them well) are completely and totally oblivious to the way the rest of the world views the missionary uniform. They don't even recognize it is a uniform let alone that people see 20 year old guys in dark suits, white shirts and ties as freaky rather than clean-cut.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even care about the uniforms so much as the way they act. SORRY GUYS, YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE THE POD PEOPLE.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish. I bet my missionary president had moments of wishing that as well. Caring for 200 young adults during the best and most stressful time most of them have yet experienced would be enormously easier if it wasn't 200 individual sets of gaping needs.
But you can't please some people. If someone is looking for something to hate, they'll always, always find it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted it as people here who are looking for something to hate about missionaries will find and then hate specific things about the missionaries. I don't think she was implying that anybody actually hated the missionaries themselves. (Forgive me for speaking out of turn)
I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior. Thus, the use of "hate" doesn't seem overly radical to me in this context.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior.
Hatred is way too strong a term for the way I feel about the missionary uniform. Even "dislike" doesn't accurate represent the way I feel. I think its kind of silly and misguided in that, for the majority of people on the planet, the uniform does not convey the image that the church wants it to convey.
I also think it is reflective of a particularly shallow attitude toward clothing and grooming that is common in Mormon culture. I do strongly dislike this aspect of Mormon culture.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike the practice of insulting Mormon culture monothically, as if it were all bad, as if such faults were solely Mormon, and as if the insulter weren't guilty of similar or equally shallow faults. But then, teaching people to be as kind to others as they are to themselves and to practice charity in thought is part of Mormon DOCTRINE, and it wouldn't have to be included if such judgmental practices weren't common.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a product and a part of Mormon culture not an outsider. My experience in the church is not limited to Utah Valley. I've been a member of the church in wards in 4 different countries and 6 different states. I'm not criticizing a stereotype, I'm criticizing something I have observed to be prevalent among Mormons even if its not universal. It's not a monolithic criticism that implies its all bad. Its very specific criticism about a part of the culture I find to be contrary to Gospel principles and counterproductive to the mission of the church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates.
I disagree very strongly with this.
To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
QFT.
It seems that people in the church's missionary department (I know one of them well) are completely and totally oblivious to the way the rest of the world views the missionary uniform. They don't even recognize it is a uniform let alone that people see 20 year old guys in dark suits, white shirts and ties as freaky rather than clean-cut.
If it makes a difference, while there is certainly that perception, I have also met quite a few folks as a missionary who indicated that they liked the uniform as they felt it look professional and sharp. TBH I can't really imagine any standard of clothing for missionaries that wouldn't have other problems.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said earlier, it's a miracle that two young men are even out on the street at all talking to people about their religion. I know I would have welcomed relaxed dress standards as a missionary myself. Wearing a white shirt and tie every day of the week was one of the hardest adjustments to make. But it's not just a product of the Church's byzantine fashion sense. Wearing the tie is meant to keep a certain respect in the missionary's head for the work he's doing and remind him to stay focused. They do stand out. They're supposed to. They don't just wear the shirt and tie, but prominent nametags as well. You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
Would you really welcome the missionaries stopping to talk to you if they were dressed like anyone else--in jeans or shorts, or even office casual?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it makes a difference, while there is certainly that perception, I have also met quite a few folks as a missionary who indicated that they liked the uniform as they felt it look professional and sharp. TBH I can't really imagine any standard of clothing for missionaries that wouldn't have other problems.
I know more than a few people who won't talk to the missionaries because they look the FBI or something. I think it would be easy enough to relax the standards a bit (say allow colored shirts and a sports coat) and still maintain a sharp professional look.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
That's part of the problem. In Trinidad, when I tell people I'm Mormon, they frequently ask why I'm not wearing the uniform. The Missionaries are the face of the church and they are creating an impression that we all dress anachronistically like Hutterites or Amish or something.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure we were a sight sometimes when there was 8 or 10 of us standing on the quai at the train station heading to some conference. We'd get teenagers snickering at us, and all we'd have to do is have one of us act like we were speaking into the collar of our overcoat. Sobered them right up.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
That's part of the problem. In Trinidad, when I tell people I'm Mormon, they frequently ask why I'm not wearing the uniform. The Missionaries are the face of the church and they are creating an impression that we all dress anachronistically like Hutterites or Amish or something.
Hey, gives you a chance to talk about the Church, right?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, gives you a chance to talk about the Church, right?
Nope. The question doesn't come up unless I've already taken the opportunity to talk about the church and it means that I'm immediately forced to talk about a negative misconception rather than something positive. Its a pity that the church's Missionary dress code is, apparently unwittingly, creating a negative impression for many people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a misconception but not all that negative, IMO. I can't imagine that it would take more than a minute of explanation to dispel the notion that not all Mormons dress like missionaries.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The notion (true or not) that conformity is a hallmark of your religion might be harder to dispel.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It's a misconception but not all that negative, IMO. I can't imagine that it would take more than a minute of explanation to dispel the notion that not all Mormons dress like missionaries.
I have no idea what experience you've had and on what basis you form your opinion. In my experience, it isn't a trivial problem. While there are those who see the Missionary uniform as positive, those people are in my experience a minority that gets smaller every year. The overwhelming majority of people I talk with are put off by it. In my experience it is a negative misconception and unlike most negative misconceptions about the church -- its caused by the church itself and not it's detractors. I think that's a problem.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church has sociologists and they take public perception polls pretty constantly. I am absolutely certain that Church HQ has a much, much better handle on how missionaries and they way they dress are percieved than anyone here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
