Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:13:17 GMT -5
I speak arabic and have traveled extensively in the region - including KSA. really? can you tell me what this means?
الكامل الخاص بك
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:19:44 GMT -5
I speak arabic and have traveled extensively in the region - including KSA. really? can you tell me what this means?
الكامل الخاص بك
That's very rude habibi. I've traveled/worked in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Never been to Iraq or Iran. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:33:35 GMT -5
I think you are very confused about why Christians were persecuted by the Romans. It is far far more complex than you suggest. Far more complex. Involving political subversion, involving treason, involving disloyalty to the city and the state, etc. It was never the reason you suggest. You mean disloyalty to the empire by not bowing down to Caesar and calling him god? Disloyalty to the empire by not offering sacrifices to the official gods of the empire? If that's not what you mean, please elaborate. Maybe you'll present your thesis defending Nero's claims about the Christians and praising his tastes in outdoor lighting? It's a very complex situation. There are some good courses on the topic from The Great Courses if you want to learn about the history. The short answer is that there were no official gods of the empire, but there were official gods of each city or region - aside from the many different mystery cults and other gods. Christians were making trouble by forswearing each particular god who protected each city - that's how riots get started. In addition, there were laws about groups of 3 or more people meeting private - it was not allowed. Yet Christians did it, and got themselves prosecuted for it (treason). A further reason was that Christians would not burn their dead - wanted to bury them. This was not allowed in Roman cities because it was a source of disease. It took at lot of conflict before Christians finally decided to buy farmland outside the city to bury their dead there - today we call that area the catacombs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:44:24 GMT -5
really? can you tell me what this means?
الكامل الخاص بك
That's very rude habibi. I've traveled/worked in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Never been to Iraq or Iran. حقاً لم يعد وقح مما أنت
you should be employed by the federal gov't and help fight terrorism instead of wasting your time here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:49:39 GMT -5
That's very rude habibi. I've traveled/worked in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Never been to Iraq or Iran. حقاً لم يعد وقح مما أنت
you should be employed by the federal gov't and help fight terrorism instead of wasting your time here...
I am fighting terrorism - I tracked down you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:59:11 GMT -5
حقاً لم يعد وقح مما أنت
you should be employed by the federal gov't and help fight terrorism instead of wasting your time here...
I am fighting terrorism - I tracked down you. that's quite witty touche!
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic-8-Ball on May 14, 2016 1:32:17 GMT -5
I've traveled/worked in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Never been to Iraq or Iran.
WARNING - Warning - BS Detected - Warning - WARNING |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 14, 2016 4:57:54 GMT -5
Anyone can go to Google translate, put it in and get the English translation. It says something different from what simpleton has translated though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 9:53:41 GMT -5
Despotism: the exercise of absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.... so ,who is the absolute power of the 2x2s, and what are the cruel and oppressive punishments? Who is is the king of the 2x2 'kingdom'? last time I checked,there was no security at the gate stopping anyone from leaving..... simpleton, for someone who has never been a part of this group,you sure have a LOT to say.... The definition: Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. Despotism is defined in the English dictionary as “the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.” It doesn't have to be cruel or oppressive, or at least not obviously cruel or oppressive. The absolute power in 2x2ism are the OVERSEERS, with a bit of behind the curtain power by some very rich "Friends'. The overseers are not elected. They have no formal process of how they are appointed. And yes there many mechanisms in place to stop people from leaving 2x2ism. The most important mechanism is shunning - which means that if a member leaves then they will lose all their friends and family as well. Many Workers/Overseers have instructed spouses of a 'divided home' to no longer have sex with the non-2x2 spouse. Those are very real control mechanisms for keeping people from leaving. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:13:01 GMT -5
One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. If your 2x2 org structure was created by God, then it would be infallible. It would not facilitate crimes, doctrine mistakes, selection of bad leaders, etc. You know that 2x2ism has facilitated crimes ( Child Sexual Assault for one). You know that 2x2ism has committed massive doctrine mistakes on a worldwide scale for decades. You know that 2x2ism has selected overseers/workers who were terrible for the group (committed crimes, abused people, etc). It's pretty obvious that the 2x2 org structure has demonstrated that it is fallible. Therefore, it was not created by God. Surprise, the 2x2 org structure is no different in origin than any other church org structure. So if we are to compare org structures, origin is not relevant. What is relevant is how the org structures perform over time. 2x2ism has been a failure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:21:51 GMT -5
One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. If your 2x2 org structure was created by God, then it would be infallible. It would not facilitate crimes, doctrine mistakes, selection of bad leaders, etc. You know that 2x2ism has facilitated crimes ( Child Sexual Assault for one). You know that 2x2ism has committed massive doctrine mistakes on a worldwide scale for decades. You know that 2x2ism has selected overseers/workers who were terrible for the group (committed crimes, abused people, etc). It's pretty obvious that the 2x2 org structure has demonstrated that it is fallible. Therefore, it was not created by God. Surprise, the 2x2 org structure is no different in origin than any other church org structure. So if we are to compare org structures, origin is not relevant. What is relevant is how the org structures perform over time. 2x2ism has been a failure. I've yet to hear of an infallible church org. not even the jews were infallible. heck even Peter and the apostles made mistakes during the crucifixtion. so that doesn't ring true to me... |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 10:29:17 GMT -5
One of your premises is that if all structures designed, setup, and maintained by human beings are equally worldly. That premise is false. You admit your organization was specifically modelled on a worldly kingdom and you think that's a good thing. What country? We're not the kingdom of the world. It's not for Christians to get involved in that sort of thing. Jesus could have become the emperor of the Roman empire if he'd wanted to. We're to follow the example of the master. His disciples belong to the kingdom of God. He said that his kingdom was not of this world. I haven't been advocating any particular organizational structure but I can see that a simple fellowship of believers with love is better than a dead formal structure. A large formal structure might be good at keeping an organization going but it doesn't have much if anything to do with keeping members faithful in serving Christ and it doesn't prevent any of the abuses you keep mentioning either. If anything, they tend to facilitate abuses as people seek power high up in the structure. The New Testament church (you can read about it in the New Testament, by the way, which is in the Bible) had local churches with elders. There was no large formal denominational structure. There was fellowship between the churches and there were some who travelled often preaching the gospel and building up the church in different places. There isn't any such thing as rule of overseers. Your internal mental picture of the group that you are attacking is nothing but a straw man. There may be faults within the group but they do not define the group as a whole. If your 2x2 org structure was created by God, then it would be infallible. Your argument is based on a false assumption. You and I were both created by God but neither of us is infallible. God anointed kings Saul and David and they were not infallible. Whether or not God designs or intends a specific system or way for his people to interact, a system is not infallible if it is implemented by men. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:32:05 GMT -5
If your 2x2 org structure was created by God, then it would be infallible. It would not facilitate crimes, doctrine mistakes, selection of bad leaders, etc. You know that 2x2ism has facilitated crimes ( Child Sexual Assault for one). You know that 2x2ism has committed massive doctrine mistakes on a worldwide scale for decades. You know that 2x2ism has selected overseers/workers who were terrible for the group (committed crimes, abused people, etc). It's pretty obvious that the 2x2 org structure has demonstrated that it is fallible. Therefore, it was not created by God. Surprise, the 2x2 org structure is no different in origin than any other church org structure. So if we are to compare org structures, origin is not relevant. What is relevant is how the org structures perform over time. 2x2ism has been a failure. I've yet to hear of an infallible church org. not even the jews were infallible. heck even Peter and the apostles made mistakes during the crucifixtion. so that doesn't ring true to me... You are missing my point. I am arguing that there is no infallible org structure, but that there are certainly org structures which are better at preventing problems than others. In other words, no org structure is perfect, but that doesn't mean they are all the same. There is huge differences in the performance of different org structures. 2x2 org structure is right at the bottom of the list in terms of a structure which is long term sustainable. The 2x2 org structure creates too many problems, problems which are 'nuclear' (business destroying). |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 10:34:42 GMT -5
Then why doesn't your supposedly better structure avoid the same problems?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:44:51 GMT -5
If your 2x2 org structure was created by God, then it would be infallible. Your argument is based on a false assumption. You and I were both created by God but neither of us is infallible. God anointed kings Saul and David and they were not infallible. Whether or not God designs or intends a specific system or way for his people to interact, a system is not infallible if it is implemented by men. Nope, you are missing the point. I agree that humans are fallible. Also there is no such thing as a perfect org structure. But what I am talking about is org structures which either enhance or reduce human fallible behavior. I'm starting to understand now why you are having so much resistance to this org structure discussion - it's because you don't realize that org structures are very influential on how humans behave. There is an entire field of study about how org structure influences human behavior - called Organizational Psychology. It means that people DO NOT make decisions independent of org structure - instead the org structure has large impacts on the decisions they make. The most famous examples of this involve sadistic behavior among some prison guards - otherwise nice normal people in their daily lives, but given the opportunity to abuse someone because their job allows it to be possible, in fact do things which are seemingly out of character. The point is that an org structure which assumes everyone will behave ethically and 100% in the interest of the organization is an org structure which is doomed to fail. If you want people to avoid behaving in a certain way, you need to put controls in place so that they are not provided the opportunity to behave in the undesired fashion. That is after all why we have laws and punishments. www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 10:47:45 GMT -5
Then why doesn't your supposedly better structure avoid the same problems? It does avoid many of the problems that 2x2ism has committed. It has avoid exclusivity. It has avoided dumb dumb interpretations of Scripture ( Matt 10, Trinity, Grace). It has avoid spiritually abusing its members. It has avoided legalist nonsense about behavior (dress, tv, radio, etc). It has avoided being unresponsive to the issues raised by its members. These are all things which are called 'no-brainers'. Meaning that it takes a very bad org structure to commit these kinds of mistakes. And 2x2ism committed those types of mistakes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 14:57:51 GMT -5
I made a lot of edits to the OP at the beginning of the thread. I incorporated a lot of the discussions on this thread into it, to make it more clear. Thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 14, 2016 19:30:15 GMT -5
Anytoll, you are selling a perspective on modesty that I am not buying. I am not buying because in my experience as I said, I do not feel that my calling in Christ informs my manner of dress. I allow that I am not an immoderate person by nature, but nevertheless, this whole discussion of modesty as it pertains to apparel seems to me to be a large waste of time. Again, because I haven't felt an inner compelling feeling to give this topic any thought or action. So I am left to wonder, lacking the urging of the Spirit to consider these matters, why do others in our fellowship push this agenda and where is that agenda coming from? Is it not the same spirit that motives all of us? I speculate that generational influences play a role in this agenda. Maybe the concept of appearing separate from the world plays a part. Maybe people believe that in their experience that this behavioral trait truly honors God. All I can do in a genuine manner is to respond to what what I feel is right in the inner man. I can understand that you have not given the topic much thought. I do not blame you for that. I didn't always think carefully about clothing either. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I do not believe that failure to consider a particular issue necessarily indicates the lack of the Holy Spirit in a person. He does not give us all knowledge at once, but rather our walk through this life is a constant journey of growth. One thing I do not understand is how a Christian can say that there is an area of his life that he believes his calling in Christ does not inform. The apostle Paul taught that we should bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". Jesus taught that God knows the number of the hairs of our head. There is nothing in the world beyond his knowledge or concern. Paul taught that though "all things are lawful for me", not all things are profitable (expedient, helpful), and that we should all seek the good of others even at the expense of doing what we believe is ours to do by right. This is classic. When someone (me) doesn't agree or "buy" a portion of pretty standard 2x2 belief the argument quickly becomes - well, you just haven't learned that yet. The opposite could be equally true, that maybe you are giving it too much thought and haven't realized it yet. i am still interested, are you one of the friends or a worker? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 19:31:24 GMT -5
At the bottom of your erroneous thinking is the false notion that there is such a thing as "2x2ism" that is an organization in the same sense that the Episcopalian Church is an organization. You're getting a bit closer with your local church-based thoughts, but all that formalism would turn any church group into a dead system like Roman Catholicism or Episcopalian over time. Formalism doesn't keep relationships alive and well; it preserves basic forms the way formaldehyde preserves corpses.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 19:59:37 GMT -5
I can understand that you have not given the topic much thought. I do not blame you for that. I didn't always think carefully about clothing either. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I do not believe that failure to consider a particular issue necessarily indicates the lack of the Holy Spirit in a person. He does not give us all knowledge at once, but rather our walk through this life is a constant journey of growth. One thing I do not understand is how a Christian can say that there is an area of his life that he believes his calling in Christ does not inform. The apostle Paul taught that we should bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". Jesus taught that God knows the number of the hairs of our head. There is nothing in the world beyond his knowledge or concern. Paul taught that though "all things are lawful for me", not all things are profitable (expedient, helpful), and that we should all seek the good of others even at the expense of doing what we believe is ours to do by right. This is classic. When someone (me) doesn't agree or "buy" a portion of pretty standard 2x2 belief the argument quickly becomes - well, you just haven't learned that yet. The opposite could be equally true, that maybe you are giving it too much thought and haven't realized it yet. Well, you were the one who said you hadn't thought about the issue much. I've explained to you how I've had both perspectives and some of how I've come to value more carefulness. I can evaluate my past perspective and see where I erred. I can't completely evaluate your perspective because I do not see it completely, but I have pointed how what you've expressed about yourself is similar to my own experience. You may choose not to see any value in that experience. I don't think that insinuating that you have nothing to learn is very humble, nor is it consistent with your chosen name. More likely there is much that we could learn from one another but it's going to happen if you choose to see my position as some "standard error" that you've already rejected without seeing any need to seriously consider it. By the way, the modesty I'm talking about is nothing close to standard "2x2" belief. It's possible that most of the sister 'workers' have a similar understanding, because they tend to dress more modestly, but they're a very small minority and I don't really know what their specific beliefs are. I try to be a friendly worker and a working friend. All God's people should be. By the way, I sent you somewhat of an elaboration by private message, along with some questions and thoughts that I thought were better addressed there than here. I'm interested in better understanding your perspective on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 14, 2016 20:58:25 GMT -5
I can understand that you have not given the topic much thought. I do not blame you for that. I didn't always think carefully about clothing either. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I do not believe that failure to consider a particular issue necessarily indicates the lack of the Holy Spirit in a person. He does not give us all knowledge at once, but rather our walk through this life is a constant journey of growth. One thing I do not understand is how a Christian can say that there is an area of his life that he believes his calling in Christ does not inform. The apostle Paul taught that we should bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". Jesus taught that God knows the number of the hairs of our head. There is nothing in the world beyond his knowledge or concern. Paul taught that though "all things are lawful for me", not all things are profitable (expedient, helpful), and that we should all seek the good of others even at the expense of doing what we believe is ours to do by right. This is classic. When someone (me) doesn't agree or "buy" a portion of pretty standard 2x2 belief the argument quickly becomes - well, you just haven't learned that yet. The opposite could be equally true, that maybe you are giving it too much thought and haven't realized it yet. i am still interested, are you one of the friends or a worker? , calleduntoliberty is very good at not answering some questions ! If you have a look on another thread I asked if he/she had children when we were discussing how children dress & modesty.... still waiting for a reply ! |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 21:52:40 GMT -5
Roselyn, feel free to read my response to a similar question from ellie from around the same time. I believe you already read it since you participated in that thread and posted shortly after it. If I'm wrong just let me know and I'm send a direct link.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 14, 2016 21:59:09 GMT -5
Roselyn, feel free to read my response to a similar question from ellie from around the same time. I believe you already read it since you participated in that thread and posted shortly after it. If I'm wrong just let me know and I'm send a direct link. Yes a link would be great thank you calleduntoliberty |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 22:01:29 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 22:03:29 GMT -5
At the bottom of your erroneous thinking is the false notion that there is such a thing as "2x2ism" that is an organization in the same sense that the Episcopalian Church is an organization. You're getting a bit closer with your local church-based thoughts, but all that formalism would turn any church group into a dead system like Roman Catholicism or Episcopalian over time. Formalism doesn't keep relationships alive and well; it preserves basic forms the way formaldehyde preserves corpses. All groups of people are social organizations - formal or informal. All social organizations have organizational structure, some fluid, some rigid. You are playing a slippery game by pretending that your group is a just some like minded people informally grouped together. 2x2ism is not just the home meetings of Friends and an Elder. There are also Workers. There are also Head Workers. And there are also Overseers. There is a chain of command among those different roles. Elders report to Workers. Workers report to Head Workers. Head Workers report to Overseers. That's an organizational structure. And that's a very FORMAL organizational structure. It's a formal organizational structure just like the RCC also have a formal organizational structure. Sure the 2x2 org structure isn't written down in a document, but that doesn't make it not exist. In fact not writing it down is one of the components in which it becomes despotic. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 14, 2016 22:36:51 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, that is a non-answer to the question ! As I said before sounds like how a worker answers a question that they don't have an answer for or don't want to answer !
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 23:52:07 GMT -5
At the bottom of your erroneous thinking is the false notion that there is such a thing as "2x2ism" that is an organization in the same sense that the Episcopalian Church is an organization. You're getting a bit closer with your local church-based thoughts, but all that formalism would turn any church group into a dead system like Roman Catholicism or Episcopalian over time. Formalism doesn't keep relationships alive and well; it preserves basic forms the way formaldehyde preserves corpses. All groups of people are social organizations - formal or informal. All social organizations have organizational structure, some fluid, some rigid. You are playing a slippery game by pretending that your group is a just some like minded people informally grouped together. 2x2ism is not just the home meetings of Friends and an Elder. There are also Workers. There are also Head Workers. And there are also Overseers. There is a chain of command among those different roles. Elders report to Workers. Workers report to Head Workers. Head Workers report to Overseers. That's an organizational structure. And that's a very FORMAL organizational structure. It's a formal organizational structure just like the RCC also have a formal organizational structure. Sure the 2x2 org structure isn't written down in a document, but that doesn't make it not exist. In fact not writing it down is one of the components in which it becomes despotic. Informal would be an accurate description. Formal, written structures are not necessary or even beneficial for all groups or 'social organizations'. You are arguing that they are necessary for what you call the "2x2s" because, in your view, they are an organization in the same sense as a formally instituted denomination. In reality the group is far less formal than you suggest and the reforms you propose would have a detrimental formalizing effect. Many 'social structures' are neither written down nor despotic. Say I a few of my friends gather together every Friday evening for informal discussions and a game of cards. Maybe I'm even the 'leader' of the organization in the sense that I'm the one responsible for calling people up and making sure they can come and handling cancellations when necessary, and the meetings are held in my home. Certainly thing despotic whatsoever in this relationship. Of course, you'll say the "2x2s" are nothing like this informal structure! There are thousands of these meetings all over the world so they must have some formal structure! Of course there are relationships between them including shared preachers, shared conventions, etc., but the individual meeting is a simple gathering of people in one place for fellowship together, and this is the core of what you call "2x2ism". You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either. You've written down your idea of a particular structure or hierarchy, one 'reporting' to another and so on. However, the facts of whoever reports to whom are not nearly as relevant as you imply, since there is hardly anything to report. What is it that you think an elder reports when he 'reports' to a worker? We had our meeting this week, same as every week. No chain of command is necessary. Even if the elder reports with the workers (and converse would probably be more accurate than report), the workers have no actual control over the meeting. Regardless of the 'organizational structure', if those who are said to control the organization actually have very little control over the way the various parts operate, it cannot be called a despotism. Despotism has a lot more to do with how much control those in power actually wield than about the structure of relationships or whether they're described in a formal written document. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 23:58:48 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , that is a non-answer to the question ! As I said before sounds like how a worker answers a question that they don't have an answer for or don't want to answer ! Other people are not obligated to answer your questions on your terms; that includes strangers to whom you address personal questions over the internet. |
|
