|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 19:15:17 GMT -5
blah... I wondered why your posts and even whole threads where you smeared people by name left and right including LF ...blah. How is quoting someone's actual words "smearing" them? How is using their words and actions to show readers how the psychology of atrocity story (per Wilson et al) works in real life "smearing" them? How is using their words and actions as an example of the unreliability of counter advocate apostate testimony (per Wilson et al) "smearing" them? And specifically how in the world is attributing the "Unbiblical teachings of William Irvine" list to -------/VOTgray libel?? ----------/VOTgray obviously agrees with the "Unbiblical teachings of William Irvine" list. How can "smearing" ---------/VOTgray as the author of something he obviously agrees with be libel? Libel is publicly accusing someone of a criminal activity they have not been convicted of in a court of law. Does -------/VOTgray think the "Unbiblical teachings of William Irvine" list is a criminal activity? He must because he reported the attributing of him as its author as libel to the TMB mods. This is bizarre beyond words. This is mainly a public notice of my findings regarding the quoted post above. The only place I could find the title Jesse L gives in this post in numerous searches is on TMB and then only that title by Jesse L and this thread on TMB professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=17959&page=2– So; In private contact directly with LF on this matter, he has stated that no such writings were ever written by him. “And, since I cannot post on TMB to say so, and since Jesse L has now made an attempted to initiate his own ‘legal’ trial with himself as ‘judge’ with the ‘defendant’ necessarily in absentia without representation in his published ‘trial’ (typical 2x2 chicken chips gossip),” he authorized me to publish the following background information on his behalf. “Repeated complaints to Proboards and Scott Ross since last June regarding Jesse L’s (and others’) repeated attempts to smear my name on TMB have been obviously futile, even though Scott Ross gave me written promise in June that he would delete my name from the TMB every time it appeared on TMB. As a result of the failure of Proboards (including Scott Ross) to put a stop to Jesse L’s personal attacks, there is a growing legal file containing all of the evidence to this date. While I have expressed no desire to take legal action to both Proboards (the publisher) and Scott Ross (its Moderator), they may force that end if they choose to do so.”
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 12, 2011 20:05:40 GMT -5
In private contact directly with LF on this matter, he has stated that no such writings were ever written by him. “And, since I cannot post on TMB to say so, and since Jesse L has now made an attempted to initiate his own ‘legal’ trial with himself as ‘judge’ with the ‘defendant’ necessarily in absentia without representation in his published ‘trial’ (typical 2x2 chicken chips gossip),” he authorized me to publish the following background information on his behalf. Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 20:14:15 GMT -5
And since he is also unable to post to say so, and uninterested in the TMB (for cause) here is a statement I have his permission to post from “gray” regarding Jesse L’s repeated attempts to smear a color and a non-existing website along with LF on TMB;
“I once was registered on TMB under the alias “gray.” Because I was the moderator of the now defunct VOT website, which has been slammed endlessly on the TMB using fabricated and even false information about those who were administering that website, the color “gray” became the target of gossip concocted by several registered members on TMB, including Jesse L. And very concerted efforts to invade the privacy of that alias to try to discover the person (obviously to attack him personally) eventually culminated with one alias-named “rational” posting a mirror sign on TMB that reflected the IP address of each computer looking at it – tricking the person on each computer into thinking that TMB was displaying that level of private information publicly.
And once I realized the trick that was played on me, in which Scott Ross was a participant having a great laugh about it, I too thought the trick hilariously funny. And I thought such good humor should be shared with everyone on the TMB including all the visitors. So I wrote up a humorous introduction and started posting that great humorous mirror-sign on every thread. But before I could reach the last thread on page 1, my ability to post suddenly disappeared – their laugh was suddenly no more laughing. And in trying to find out what had happened I discovered that I had been banned for what was now classified as “spam.” And I found the board Admin undecided as to whether such a ban would be temporary or permanent. So I made the decision for them by writing Scott Ross and demanding that it be made permanent by deletion of my account. And I have had NO interest in even visiting the TMB ever since. Forget the board rules - it seems that the only privacy you will be allowed on the TMB is if you kiss their asps on the TMB.”
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 12, 2011 20:29:39 GMT -5
You might want to have him forward you that email with that 'promise' in it for us all to read.
I would just as soon not post the personal correspondence here, but can if needed.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 21:34:56 GMT -5
You might want to have him forward you that email with that 'promise' in it for us all to read. I would just as soon not post the personal correspondence here, but can if needed. I have posted what I was sent and was permitted to post and if you want to threaten to post private correspondence between yourself an LF, you are threatening the wrong person. And if you want him to verify what he wrote of your promise, you are also asking the wrong person to get that for you – I stopped being your servant on this board after similar attempted personal attacks on rnstrbnsn went drifting right by your nose too. So even my own experience on this board corresponds very closely with what they wrote of theirs. To quote gray’s words. After what I have just learned of their experience on TMB couple with my own experience TMB and its mods can “kiss my asp.”
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 12, 2011 21:51:35 GMT -5
How were they libelous? You are making it painfully obvious you have no idea what libel is. I don’t know, and no one can find out either, but the fact that you shot off your entrance foot and your exit foot along (both feet of the mods too) and with the evidence of the deletion of your posts, that is good enough evidence for me. And clearly your learning ability from your own actions teaches you nothing in spite of the stench of your own “Lloud Fartt’s” so rather than waste more odor-masking spray on you, I’ll just leave the room now and let you sit in your own pew along with any that like the stench of your “Lloud Fartt’s.” Graceful words again
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 12, 2011 21:55:38 GMT -5
Some might be that way, just like in any religious group. I'm not that way, and I know others who aren't, just like in any religious group. The beginning workers intended to preach the gospel and win converts for Christ without forming a religious system. Rather than point a finger at the critics, lets do what we can to counter the cult-like tendencies that are destroying the fellowship we love. Yet you rather point the finger at your own
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 12, 2011 22:10:49 GMT -5
It wasn't a threat. I mentioned that I didn't want to post personal correspondence, but could if needed. In other words, since I have all the correspondence in question, I would obviously have such an email that I could post if needed to clarify an issue. You have made a claim, but now can't back it up. There was no such correspondence as you referred to in June, and later correspondence was concerning a certain thread that was moved from the main board, and discussion regarding returning it to the main board. gray registered and deleted his account several times here on the TMB. There was no need for any of the mods to delete his account, so I don't know what you are referring to in your other post. Likewise, the incident you were referring to WAS spamming the board. Just curious as to how many of the mods you have dealt with since you are referring to all the mods. Interesting that you want them all to 'kiss your asp'. Are you referring to clearday and Alan Vandermyden in that group? How about Juliette, rational and hope? They are all mods as well on various sections of the boards here. Do you even have a clue as to how many mods there are? Most people here on the TMB are treated in the same manner as they treat others. If you want someone to kiss your asp, you may have to look elsewhere.....
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 23:42:45 GMT -5
It wasn't a threat. I mentioned that I didn't want to post personal correspondence, but could if needed. In other words, since I have all the correspondence in question, I would obviously have such an email that I could post if needed to clarify an issue. You have made a claim, but now can't back it up. There was no such correspondence as you referred to in June, and later correspondence was concerning a certain thread that was moved from the main board, and discussion regarding returning it to the main board. gray registered and deleted his account several times here on the TMB. There was no need for any of the mods to delete his account, so I don't know what you are referring to in your other post. Likewise, the incident you were referring to WAS spamming the board. Just curious as to how many of the mods you have dealt with since you are referring to all the mods. Interesting that you want them all to 'kiss your asp'. Are you referring to clearday and Alan Vandermyden in that group? How about Juliette, rational and hope? They are all mods as well on various sections of the boards here. Do you even have a clue as to how many mods there are? Most people here on the TMB are treated in the same manner as they treat others. If you want someone to kiss your asp, you may have to look elsewhere..... Ya ya – Your continued request for verification from the wrong person is a no-brainer that you don’t really want verification or you would be asking for it from the correct source. And again, I have posted what “gray” sent with permission for posting it on his behalf. And frankly at this point I have plenty supporting evidence already that “gray” is not a liar. And if you think he is, you could contact him yourself too, so it seems you would rather not have that out with the correct person either. And if there are more moderators on this board than yourself and the other mod who helped me figure out how to make a thread to post on at the time of my registry, that would logically multiply the number of mod-eyes closed to all the personal attacks going on in front of them. So if you want my preference, I would rather stick with my knowledge of only two mods.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 13, 2011 9:24:41 GMT -5
You and Rational just can't stand it when someone delicately suggests the 2x2 might be a cult. Speaking for myself, the only person for whom I am authorized to speak, I don't care what you call anything. But if you want to discuss a subject we all need to be using the same meaning for common words. Given the wide variation in the definition of cult I am guessing the people who post on the TMB could be classified as a cult. Since there is such a wide range of definitions for the word cult, without a specific definition attached to its use it is meaningless and serves no purpose other than to denigrate the group. The word is used for shock value or by people who have a limited understanding of the many definitions of the word. I always assume the latter and try to open peoples mind to the image they present when using a word that has such a wide range of meaning but still carries the image of Jim Jones and David Koresh. It is one of those words that says more about the person using it than the group they are describing. Well, I would say it has absolutely nothing about being classified as a cult. And, like your use of the word cult, it depends on how you define/redefine a lot of common words. Perhaps they believe that it was 'rediscovered' several times. Perhaps there was simply very poor record keeping. Personally, I don't care either way but for those to whom it does matter I suggest they do a little research and satisfy themselves. And, if so moved, take your findings and ask the workers directly, with data to backup your claims, rather than just fuming about it on a message board.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 13, 2011 11:21:37 GMT -5
I don't see how either eisegesis or exegesis are relevant on this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate as I don't see your point. Did you expect to perform some kind of exegesis based on the thread title? Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter! While one can make distinctions in theology using Scripture as a basis, in the sense of this or that doctrine being sound or unsound, it is wholly impossible to use Scripture for the kind of judgement call you are suggesting. Only individuals or groups who claim to have a monopoly on the truth would think they are able to do so. While you might see a centrist claim to truth based on academic weight, or numbers, or sound 'exegesis', I see instead the ordinary workings of ideology, which has always served to maintain a status quo, to maintain the present position of those who have the levers of power, and to keep all forms of other-ness out. In other words, there is nothing of truth in a theology that is used to distinguished cult from sect from mainstream; it's about power and politics, nothing more or less. The picture of a video image of Bush in front of all those southern Baptists demonstrates that that kind of theology is about reciprocity between political and religious interests; nothing spiritual or true about it.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 14, 2011 3:11:14 GMT -5
Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter! While one can make distinctions in theology using Scripture as a basis, in the sense of this or that doctrine being sound or unsound, it is wholly impossible to use Scripture for the kind of judgement call you are suggesting. Only individuals or groups who claim to have a monopoly on the truth would think they are able to do so. While you might see a centrist claim to truth based on academic weight, or numbers, or sound 'exegesis', I see instead the ordinary workings of ideology, which has always served to maintain a status quo, to maintain the present position of those who have the levers of power, and to keep all forms of other-ness out. In other words, there is nothing of truth in a theology that is used to distinguished cult from sect from mainstream; it's about power and politics, nothing more or less. The picture of a video image of Bush in front of all those southern Baptists demonstrates that that kind of theology is about reciprocity between political and religious interests; nothing spiritual or true about it. As usual, words with no substance! What are you trying to start a trend so as to avoid answering the question in hand?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 14, 2011 10:41:35 GMT -5
While one can make distinctions in theology using Scripture as a basis, in the sense of this or that doctrine being sound or unsound, it is wholly impossible to use Scripture for the kind of judgement call you are suggesting. Only individuals or groups who claim to have a monopoly on the truth would think they are able to do so. While you might see a centrist claim to truth based on academic weight, or numbers, or sound 'exegesis', I see instead the ordinary workings of ideology, which has always served to maintain a status quo, to maintain the present position of those who have the levers of power, and to keep all forms of other-ness out. In other words, there is nothing of truth in a theology that is used to distinguished cult from sect from mainstream; it's about power and politics, nothing more or less. The picture of a video image of Bush in front of all those southern Baptists demonstrates that that kind of theology is about reciprocity between political and religious interests; nothing spiritual or true about it. As usual, words with no substance! What are you trying to start a trend so as to avoid answering the question in hand? Mr. Grey, I think you have a very good example of how the f&w's usually handle questions that they either don't want to answer or they don't know the answer!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 14, 2011 11:33:02 GMT -5
I find exegenesis very helpful in understanding the Bible, irvinegrey, but it was a process that I learned outside of the 2x2s. I'm not aware of full exegenesis being used by the 2x2s. The closest to this practice were Wednesday night bible studies on certain subjects, like angels, but this practice ended in my corner of the world years and years ago. It caused the friends to ask the workers too many questions - at least, that was the reason I heard. I've also heard a couple of workers try to track certain things through the Bible, but it's usually done allegorically such as how a broken alabaster box shows how important a broken spirit is. I haven't heard of any worker or friend use exegenesis on things of faith, such as the faith, discipleship, prayer, peace, discipline, or the tenets of Christianity. These words are mentioned, but the definitions do not come from exegenesis.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 14, 2011 12:33:10 GMT -5
Well.... In addition to myself and the 5 other sub-board moderatiors there are these currently registered mods: Name Email mod1 hidden mod2 hidden mod3 hidden mod4 hidden mod5 hidden mod6 hidden mod7 hidden mod8 hidden Of course most of those mods also have a regular user name that they post under, and they are split between professing and exes. I'm just the one that wears the bulls-eye on his back is all....
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 14, 2011 12:53:00 GMT -5
Well.... In addition to myself and the 5 other sub-board moderatiors there are these currently registered mods: Name Email mod1 hidden mod2 hidden mod3 hidden mod4 hidden mod5 hidden mod6 hidden mod7 hidden mod8 hidden Of course most of those mods also have a regular user name that they post under, and they are split between professing and exes. I'm just the one that wears the bulls-eye on his back is all.... And obviously, you like to share that bulls eye with all the others instead of honoring my preference to only know of two mods. When might the registered people on this board expect you to enforce the "no personal attacks" rule upon Jesse L -- perhaps after he spreads his derogatory false gossip against persons not able to reply (chicken chips) so widely on TMB that the board will need ten more mods just to clean up TMB from all his personal attacks?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 14, 2011 13:32:43 GMT -5
How is it derogatory to be attributed as the author of a list you and they obviously agree with? Is the list a bad thing? Is the list a criminal activity? Is the list full of lies? Exactly how is it derogatory?? If it is derogatory towards its author why is it posted on VOT? And how is it a personal attack to simply quote the words of gray?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 14, 2011 15:04:01 GMT -5
Well.... In addition to myself and the 5 other sub-board moderatiors there are these currently registered mods: Name Email mod1 hidden mod2 hidden mod3 hidden mod4 hidden mod5 hidden mod6 hidden mod7 hidden mod8 hidden Of course most of those mods also have a regular user name that they post under, and they are split between professing and exes. I'm just the one that wears the bulls-eye on his back is all.... And obviously, you like to share that bulls eye with all the others instead of honoring my preference to only know of two mods. When might the registered people on this board expect you to enforce the "no personal attacks" rule upon Jesse L -- perhaps after he spreads his derogatory false gossip against persons not able to reply (chicken chips) so widely on TMB that the board will need ten more mods just to clean up TMB from all his personal attacks? There is a report post option you should use to report any personal attacks. It links to the post you are referring to, and then that specific post can be read to determine whether it is to be considered to violate any board rules. All the mods and the Admin will then be able to check out the reported post, discuss the issue and take any action considered appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2011 15:49:26 GMT -5
I find exegenesis very helpful in understanding the Bible, irvinegrey, but it was a process that I learned outside of the 2x2s. I'm not aware of full exegenesis being used by the 2x2s. The closest to this practice were Wednesday night bible studies on certain subjects, like angels, but this practice ended in my corner of the world years and years ago. It caused the friends to ask the workers too many questions - at least, that was the reason I heard. I've also heard a couple of workers try to track certain things through the Bible, but it's usually done allegorically such as how a broken alabaster box shows how important a broken spirit is. I haven't heard of any worker or friend use exegenesis on things of faith, such as the faith, discipleship, prayer, peace, discipline, or the tenets of Christianity. These words are mentioned, but the definitions do not come from exegenesis. Just curious: did you mean exegenesis or exegesis?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 14, 2011 17:52:11 GMT -5
It is exegesis! Thanks for the catch!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 14, 2011 21:46:29 GMT -5
As usual, words with no substance! What are you trying to start a trend so as to avoid answering the question in hand? Mr. Grey, I think you have a very good example of how the f&w's usually handle questions that they either don't want to answer or they don't know the answer! Oh, I'm REALLY glad to hear that What is back among the F&W!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 14, 2011 21:48:45 GMT -5
Mr. Grey, I think you have a very good example of how the f&w's usually handle questions that they either don't want to answer or they don't know the answer! Oh, I'm REALLY glad to hear that What is back among the F&W!!! ;D What I'm trying to say there H, is that exes are not able to slough off their habits that easy!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2011 22:29:26 GMT -5
You and Rational just can't stand it when someone delicately suggests the 2x2 might be a cult. Speaking for myself, the only person for whom I am authorized to speak, Not even that, for atheists fail to lay out any theory of authority. I don't care what you call anything. Yes, an atheist has no basis to care about anything. But if you want to discuss a subject we all need to be using the same meaning for common words. This is so very important given that atheists don't acknowledge a basis by which any meaning might be represented by words. Given the wide variation in the definition of cult I am guessing the people who post on the TMB could be classified as a cult. Mr. Grey gave his definition, but since the noisiest persons on the TMB deny that there is anything certain and defensible about Christianity and in some individuals to anything . .. we must be careful not to label anything a cult. Since there is such a wide range of definitions for the word cult, without a specific definition attached to its use it is meaningless and serves no purpose other than to denigrate the group. Mr. Grey gave his definition. The word is used for shock value or by people who have a limited understanding of the many definitions of the word. I always assume the latter and try to open peoples mind to the image they present when using a word that has such a wide range of meaning but still carries the image of Jim Jones and David Koresh. That's why Mr. Grey clarified the manner in which he was using the word. [It is one of those words that says more about the person using it than the group they are describing. It is one of those words that says more about the people objecting to the word than the group being described.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2011 22:38:40 GMT -5
Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter! While one can make distinctions in theology using Scripture as a basis, in the sense of this or that doctrine being sound or unsound, it is wholly impossible to use Scripture for the kind of judgement call you are suggesting. Only individuals or groups who claim to have a monopoly on the truth would think they are able to do so. While you might see a centrist claim to truth based on academic weight, or numbers, or sound 'exegesis', I see instead the ordinary workings of ideology, which has always served to maintain a status quo, to maintain the present position of those who have the levers of power, and to keep all forms of other-ness out. In other words, there is nothing of truth in a theology that is used to distinguished cult from sect from mainstream; it's about power and politics, nothing more or less. The picture of a video image of Bush in front of all those southern Baptists demonstrates that that kind of theology is about reciprocity between political and religious interests; nothing spiritual or true about it. Obviously you believe you are in possession of a theology superior to others. Can you articulate it in a concise, doctrinal expository fashion yet? Join my club of the expectant beggers or shoot straight, I tell you.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2011 22:56:52 GMT -5
If one can avoid absconding ones identity while acquiring and drawing closer to the mind/will of God, are Christians really doomed as you imply, to the fate of a shrinking worldview? I don't don't have any idea how you got that out of my post. Well, you said that nothing shrinks one worldview faster than placing oneself at the center of the universe. But thats exactly what Christians are seeking to do when they desire to perceive God's will. Oh, do you mean placing the sensual self at the center of the universe. Shame on you Jesse, tell me this is not a case of 'it takes one to know one'. Type III apostates have a shrunken worldview, at least partly because they always put themselves at the center of it. The whole world revolves around them. In their world they have all the answers, they know everything. Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong, and mirrors, so they can see what manner of man they are, are non-existant. Watch type III apostates of any religious flavor and you will see it. By this, do you mean the 2x2's, generally speaking? At any rate Christians, of all people, should not be so self centered it shrinks their worldview to the point they speak and act like type III apostates do. IMO that, clearly, is the opposite of what Jesus taught. That's very good advise: to do no more of what is bad than it requires to remain good.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 14, 2011 23:28:40 GMT -5
So I guess there's not a discernable difference between religions, specifically that of their affect upon people? I thought you were a 2x2, not just because you liked it but because you thought it had some quantifiable concentration of truth, the very currency of philosphopical intergrity as well as the very soul-essence of our Lord. What gives with you Jesse? Put a name and "discernible difference" on this; "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." How do the 2x2's care for the orphans and widows? Typically they resist the natural interpretation of this scripture and "spiritualize" it, no? Instead of doing that man wastes much time and effort "discerning" the religion of his fellow man. The tale is as old as time. The worst are the Type III apostates. They act as if it's been given to them, and only them, to not only discern, but broad brush judge and condemn the innocent along with whoever *they* think is guilty. They are very exclusive about it too, they are the only ones Worthy to judge, very interesting psychology at play for all to see even right here on this thread! In contrast spiritual truth and philosophical integrity doesn't come from man, and that includes type III apostates no matter how much they will protest that fact. Jesse. Surely you are just telegraphing to us that it "takes one to know one".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 15, 2011 10:56:33 GMT -5
Not even that, for atheists fail to lay out any theory of authority. I think what you are trying to say, and I am not speaking for you, is that atheists do not believe in a paranormal that will give them their marching orders. This is false. I care about the members in my family. I care about those with whom I share this planet and try not to deliberately do anything to them that I would not like them to do to me. Like other organisms on earth, I care about self preservation. I am pretty fond of the dictionary and to the denotation as well as the connotation that the majority of people attach to the words they use to communicate. Is 'definition' in the OP what you are referring to: ‘By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.
Or this one: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'
Perhaps you could point out the one that we should be looking at. Can you provide a reference? Glad I am not in that group. They do not hold the same beliefs as we do.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 15, 2011 10:59:50 GMT -5
Well, you said that nothing shrinks one worldview faster than placing oneself at the center of the universe. But thats exactly what Christians are seeking to do when they desire to perceive God's will. This is sort of silly. Cosmologically speaking we are all at the center of the universe!
|
|