Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Can we ask the right question?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 358 in total
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #91
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is the 'image' that separates us; can it be seen for what it is?

It can only be seen in the moment that anger or fear arises, not in the abstract. It is only in the moment that anger or fear can actually be silently observed. Then the desire to protect "myself" is also seen. Anger is rooted in thought, but anger itself is not effort. Anger arises without effort, doesn't it? Where there is anger, the mind wants and tries to end it, which can also be seen. It is desire, choice and effort which separates "me" from the anger, isn't it? It is desire, choice and effort which produce the image in that moment.

Dan McDermott wrote:
the 'belief' in the image that has been created about us, that we (unconsciously?) maintain

I can see that the meaning of belief can be stretched to include self, idea, ambition, ideal, opinion and conclusion. Can it also be stretched to encompass choice, effort and desire? I suppose that where choice and effort are made to fulfill desire, it CAN be said that desire, choice and effort are based on the belief that "I" should have or be the desired thing. What about “time”, which is also thought? What about illusion? I suppose it can be said that time and illusion are also belief.

So I can believe or think that I understand something --- for example, that anger, fear, self-righteousness and conceit are rooted in thought-time, that self is a bundle of images, and so on. And yet when you insult me, anger arises AND I immediately react verbally (or otherwise) AND I deny feeling angry AND I justify my reaction. So where is the observation? Where is the silence? Where is the understanding?

But if the reaction (anger or fear, etc.) arises and “I stay with it”, there is silence, not words of explanation. Out of this silence, words may come.

I don’t know if my meaning is clear and I don’t know if I really do understand.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 21 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #92
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1920 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
There is a Christian church here in Ojai that has a large sign, a banter, outside saying: BELIEVE BELONG BECOME.

Well that pretty much sums up the conditioning of those of us born into the christian mode of consciousness. The shock in in the realisation that EVERYTHING humanity regards as sacred leads to confusion and sorrow.

Why was K so adamant about the danger of his words being taken as dogma, insisting always that he was just a passer-by pointing something out? Demanding no followers! Question everything. Find out first-hand.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #93
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But if the reaction (anger or fear, etc.) arises and “I stay with it”, there is silence, not words of explanation. Out of this silence, words may come.

You haven't brought in, or maybe it is included in your thoughts, the idea of 'naming'. You call me 'stupid', there is a reaction in me, a sensation, energy, period. But the sensation or energy is 'identified' or named through recognition of a similar sensation in the past: 'anger','fear', etc. But now it is no longer a sensation or energy, now it has a name and that name is condemnatory. "I don't like being angry" (or fearful). So now because a label has been put on the sensation, and the label is negative, the effort arises to get rid of it, escape from it, exacerbating it,etc. But (and it's a big but) , if there is no naming...just this 'staying with' the arising sensation (which by the way is always 'new') then it can be 'seen' for what ( the "jewel")? it actually is...not through the word 'anger' or 'fear', etc. And then it can be dealt with by allowing it to 'wither'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #94
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Isn’t it only when the feeling of anger is observed silently that the whole process of anger can be seen? Where the feeling is not followed by naming, the entire process giving rise to self can be seen, it seems to me.

It’s easy enough to see my immediate anger. But what about what follows? Between the feeling and the “naming” - measuring, analyzing, etc. - which follows, isn’t there unconscious thought, or barely conscious thought? Haven’t we been indoctrinated to believe that I have an obligation to retaliate to an insult; that if I just “let it go”, that means I’m soft, a pushover, a sucker, weak, and so on? And aren’t I afraid to be seen as weak? So when I feel angry (which I might deny), I want, I choose and I try to retaliate.

Isn’t that more or less the conditioned thought process that is observed assembling the “me”? - the initial reaction of anger, etc., followed by fear of being weak, followed by the desire, choice and effort of thought to hit back through naming and/or punching. No? The “me” is not static or constant. It comes and it goes. When it “comes”, the belief is that it’s “been there all along”.

That’s what I meant earlier when I said I could see that we could stretch the meaning of “belief”. It includes “naming” - I hadn’t thought of that word, and probably others as well.

Isn’t this process rooted in the fear of appearing weak, and so in the belief or conviction that “no one should be calling me stupid”, that “you have no right”, that “it’s wrong”, “you have a lot of nerve”, “who do you think you are”, and so on. That fear of being weak can’t be observed if there is no pause in the sequence. So where the feeling of fear is observed without naming, effort or motive, as one might observe a jewel, there is learning.

Dan McDermott wrote:
And then it can be dealt with by allowing it to 'wither'.

I don't see it as "dealing with it" or as "allowing" it to wither. I'm a little embarassed saying this because I don't think that's what you really meant. Is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #95
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don't see it as "dealing with it" or as "allowing" it to wither. I'm a little embarassed saying this because I don't think that's what you really meant. Is it?

When the sensation known as 'fear' or 'anger' is present, and knowing what it has done in the past, is it intelligent to go down the same track with it as before, the 'endless' back and forth of thought's justifications, rationalizations, denials, etc., or can it just be 'dealt with' as a sensation, without the endless back and forth and just be allowed to settle down, to wither, rather than for thought to carry it on and on?.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #96
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
There is a Christian church here in Ojai that has a large sign, a banter, outside saying: BELIEVE BELONG BECOME.

So this is a christian church oppose to other churches according to Mr Anti -everything . He is anti -Krishnamurti ,anti -Christ, Anti- Idiot, Anti Goodman, and at last anti -oneself , ?????

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #97
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1920 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
So this is a christian church oppose to other churches according to Mr Anti -everything . He is anti -Krishnamurti ,anti -Christ, Anti- Idiot, Anti Goodman, and at last anti -oneself , ?????

That statement really makes no sense One Self. Can you not simply listen to what is being said by Jack instead of imposing your own prejudices and reaching an illogical conclusion. Perhaps you cannot.....

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #98
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Can you not simply listen to what is being said by Jack.

Listening is selective. I listen to Beethoven but I don't listen to meaningless raps.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #99
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Haven’t we been indoctrinated to believe that I have an obligation to retaliate to an insult; that if I just “let it go”, that means I’m soft, a pushover, a sucker, weak, and so on? And aren’t I afraid to be seen as weak? So when I feel angry (which I might deny), I want, I choose and I try to retaliate.

Yes an "obligation" to retaliate. And we have a whole spectrum of reactions from a punch in the nose or worse, to a pitying smile to show you how far above and superior I am to you...but behind whatever reaction, I think, is this fear that my 'cover' will be blown, my phoniness revealed, my 'mask' found to be wanting. So it's interesting (to say the least) to hear K. say, that 'I am nothing'. That "I don't exist". Looked at in that light, the whole 'persona', mask, self, construction is an elaborate effort to actually protect 'nothing'. Isn't that what you were proposing when you asked if we could relate to one another, not through these masks or personas? Maybe you weren't. But if you were, the problem is can we 'do' such a thing, even if we agree to 'try'? Do 'we' realize the extent of our own 'self-protection. Can 'we' just 'check it' at the door on our way in? Of course there is no 'we' apart to 'do' anything, is there? There's only thought itself seeing how it behaves, as in the instance you described above, and in the seeing, may possibly let go of the 'old way'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #100
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5547 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Well that pretty much sums up the conditioning of those of us born into the christian mode of consciousness. The shock in in the realisation that EVERYTHING humanity regards as sacred leads to confusion and sorrow.

Yeah, this is pretty much the way it struck my wife and me. The church has managed to sum up all that we have been conditioned to be and to do in just three words. These words are the very antithesis of much of what K was pointing out. At least to what I think K was trying to point out. And it's right here in the Ojai Valley where K spent so much time. He is practically an unknown here now. Generally speaking the native populace of Ojai is fairly conservative and generally wealthy.

Here's something I think is funny that Michael Krohnen told me a few weeks ago. I think it was in his book too. One time a letter was delivered to the Oak Grove School addressed to Christopher Murphy! Someone apparently anglicized Krishnamurti's name. It makes me laugh just talking about it again. Have a nice day Patricia and everyone.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #101
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The “me” is not static or constant. It comes and it goes. When it “comes”, the belief is that it’s “been there all along”

It's important to see this but it generally goes unnoticed, doesn't it? K. used the word "transient" to describe the 'self' ; that we don't see how 'transient' it is...but I didn't get what he meant until I read your post above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #102
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do 'we' realize the extent of our own 'self-protection. Can 'we' just 'check it' at the door on our way in?

If I’m UNAWARE of the fear which precedes anger and of the conditioned consciousness which gives rise to the fear, then I see the anger arising in me through the lens of the past, i.e. through my conditioning. "I" name, justify, analyze and explain my anger in accordance with the conditioning. This can be observed. This conditioned “seeing” IS the movement of the past, thought/memory. This “seeing” IS thought acting - dividing, splitting itself into “me” and “anger”. Isn’t it? That is the process which produces self. This "seeing" is not awareness, is it?

Thought distorts perception of fact. Awareness doesn’t distort because it doesn’t know anything, it is not conditioned. Awareness just IS. Awareness acts without forethought. Awareness sees without fragmentation - it excludes nothing, it chooses nothing, it prefers nothing, it attempts nothing. It sees at a glance. It sees the anger, the fear at the root of the anger, and the naming/beliefs/conditioning at the root of fear. For awareness to act unhindered, thought must fall silent. There must be a silent pause. In silence, merely by being or existing, awareness “checks” the process of false perception produced by thought.

If I’m aware - not “me” being aware but just awareness acting/being, unhindered by thought - that awareness is all the right action that is needed. Then it is not necessary for “me” to check anything at the door. Isn't awareness clarity? Doesn't awareness open the door to intelligence and understanding?

So when anger arises, can thought be silent so that the whole significance and process of anger can be observed? Can’t thought “understand” - within its limitations - the need for silence? Can’t thought go to the end of thought, to the end of its limits, and fall silent? There is understanding beyond thought, beyond words and naming.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #103
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So when anger arises, can thought be silent so that the whole significance and process of anger can be observed? Can’t thought “understand” - within its limitations - the need for silence?

If thought is silent, is there 'anger'? Isn't what is associated with or called 'anger', the violent movement of 'thinking'? The cascading of thoughts? The dissipation through 'thought' of the 'energy' of the sensation? But if thought is silent and doesn't react to the sensation and 'keep it alive', does it just subside on its own?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #104
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: I am here to learn only from Krishnamurti and related topics. ... Do you have an image of K...?

But we are not going to find K here. We are only going to find a lot of flawed individuals just like ourselves. So it is our enquiry, first of all. And is it possible to start our enquiry in the right way, with the right question? This is simple enough to understand; I don't know why people are avoiding the issue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #105
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If thought is silent, is there 'anger'?

Anger IS rooted in thought. But the reactive sensation of anger does not arise out of effort. The sensation arises without warning and without effort. Then the desire to deal with anger, to do something about anger, follows the reaction, doesn’t it? That desire is also part of thought's process of reaction. But it is still not effort, as I see it. Then the drive to figure out what to do to punish the falsely perceived source of the anger (myself or someone else) follows. This drive is effort, isn't it. So the sensation of anger is triggered by unconscious thought but it is not the thought of conscious effort.

There is an interval between the arising of anger and the effort, isn’t there? This is what I see. K spoke about the interval between idea and action. Is this the interval? The idea (of which I was unaware) would be something to the effect that “I am not supposed to let myself be pushed around” (for example). This is followed by the desire to put the idea into action. Between the idea of what should be, and figuring out what action to take, there is an interval. That interval is effort, isn’t it? Or not? It is this effort of thought which can fall silent. It falls silent because it is within thought's limited capacity to understand the need for silence, which is awareness.

As long as there is no silent pause, the sensation is automatically and immediately followed by the desire to act and by retaliatory action. As long as there is no pause, it is taken for granted that retaliatory action is necessary and this belief is acted on.

The effort to act in retaliation involves naming, explaining, accusing, justifying, analyzing, and so on. The effort is expressed verbally or physically. The verbal expression might include a denial of anger. In all this, there is no pause, so no awareness of the whole process and no understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #106
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Can relationship/action be approached in a new way, without causing conflict and pain inwardly and outwardly? This is fundamentally what all our questioning is about, isn’t it? Thought-time-conflict is the old approach. There can't be a new approach without a pause or a break in the old approach. As I see it, silence is the pause that is needed. Can there be a silence - a break in the stream of thought - at the very moment when anger or fear arises?

The problem is the same old problem we have faced for many years: you bring in the notion of 'silence' as our starting point for enquiry, assuming that I and all the others here possess exactly this same quality. But we don't know anything about silence. So I am suggesting something rather different. I am suggesting that the right question will itself provide all the right qualities for our enquiry. In other words, we don't need to start with anything else except the right question. So can we put the right question? We are now going back right to the beginning. Let's put aside the question of an empty mind. I say it is still a valid question, but as we have new people entering the dialogue, it may be better to start afresh.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #107
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
we don't need to start with anything else except the right question.

Is there only ONE impossible question? I say no. An impossible question is a question to which there is no known answer, isn’t it? Are you saying that “the” impossible question - the only “right” question - is: “can we ask the right question”? What happens when this question is put? As I see it, what happens is that the mind is looking through the known for an answer.

I ask if there “can there be a silence - a break in the stream of thought - at the very moment when anger or fear arises”. What happens when this question or another question to which there is no known answer is asked? As I see it, the mind falls silent. That is choiceless awareness. Awareness acts. Out of silence, something can flower, not out of the effort to find the right question, it seems to me.

In any case, I have said quite enough.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #108
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But we are not going to find K here.

When I listen to Beethoven I don't look for him. I enjoy the music he wrote. The same wit k or any other philosopher.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
We are only going to find a lot of flawed individuals just like ourselves.

That is for sure. Not only in this k forum also in Krishnamurti network site which is even more childish.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
is it possible to start our enquiry in the right way, with the right question?

Yes we can , only when we know what "right question" means. The problem is that some of us are incapable of clarity due to our previous life and habits. We all want to proceed but some of us can't due to confusion that we are in. In America that one lives in there is a great confusion. State governments are against federal government and they got the power to shut down the federal government through republicans. People in this country are in coma. They don't see what is coming to them.
So as long as one is confused and half sleep his or her questions should also be confusing .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #109
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Why was K so adamant about the danger of his words being taken as dogma, insisting always that he was just a passer-by pointing something out? Demanding no followers! Question everything. Find out first-hand.

Do you know what that word "follower" means?,seriously. Can you make an example of how a person can possibly be a follower of the teachings ?
When you bring the idea of worshiping the teaching (which we call Krishnamurti) or following Krishnamurti don't you expose yourself as a person that doesn't talk from his or her direct experience?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #110
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5547 posts in this forum Offline

follower

[fol-oh-er]?

SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR follower ON THESAURUS.COM

noun

1a person or thing that follows.

2a person who follows another in regard to his or her ideas or belief; disciple or adherent.

3a person who imitates, copies, or takes as a model or ideal:
He was little more than a follower of current modes.

4a>One Self wrote:
I am here to learn ONLY from Krishnamurti and related topics.

One self, what about learning from your own observations? Can you discover anything on your own or can you only learn from what K said? If so then you are following what K has already discovered not anything you have discovered. That's the very definition of a follower.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #111
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1920 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Do you know what that word "follower" means?,seriously.

Yes.

Can you make an example of how a person can possibly be a follower of the teachings ?

Why?

When you bring the idea of worshiping the teaching (which we call Krishnamurti) or following Krishnamurti don't you expose yourself as a person that doesn't talk from his or her direct experience?

Where is 'the idea of worshiping of the teaching'? Example please One Self. Enough of empty words and assumptive mis-conclusions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #112
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Never mind. It is like pumping water to a dead tree . No one can possibly be a follower of the teachings. That itself tells me that you two never understood k . You merely use the words that you heard from him here and there and inject it into the discussions which has absolutely no value. But don't let me stop you.:=)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #113
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1920 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Never mind

You were asked to provide an example. If you cannot do this - just say so.

Your opinion of who may or may not have understood K is simply that - opinion. And as such - none of my business. Opinion is only ever about the person having it - nothing at all to do with who it is aimed at. Have you not seen that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #114
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1391 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I ask if there “can there be a silence - a break in the stream of thought - at the very moment when anger or fear arises”.

If at that moment, there is no 'effort' to replace (escape) what is recognized as 'anger' or 'fear'...no movement away to their 'opposites' ...no movement away from 'what is'... no movement to 'become' other than 'what is'. That is the ending of 'anger' and 'fear'. Yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #115
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If so then you are following what K has already discovered not anything you have discovered. That's the very definition of a follower.

One wonders if jack is even capable of clarity. He thinks that by labeling someone he has figured him out! His collection of labels are ,follower, worshiper,what else? Asshole,supporter of trump . He doesn't know that his words are as empty and meaningless as his mind is.:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #116
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Is there only one impossible question? I say no. An impossible question is a question to which there is no known answer, isn’t it? Are you saying that the impossible question - the only right question - is: 'Can we ask the right question?'? What happens when this question is put? As I see it, what happens is that the mind is looking through the known for an answer.

Please just listen to it for a moment. It is not about a search for an answer; and it is not about impossible questions. Can we ask the right question? Keep it very simple. What makes the right question? First of all, it is a question that deeply concerns both of us; I think this must be the starting point. Don't you agree?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 23 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #117
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Is it possible to start our enquiry in the right way, with the right question?

One Self: Yes, we can, only when we know what "right question" means. The problem is that some of us are incapable of clarity due to our previous life and habits.

Let's forget about some of us. There are just the two of us. Can we together work out what the right question is?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 23 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #118
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5547 posts in this forum Offline

Hey One (you don't mind if I call you by your first name do you? I mean we are buddies aren't we? You can call me Jack.) Read two of your recent posts below and then notice how what you accuse others of doing is actually what you are doing. Labeling. You don't see what a complete hypocrite you are do you? But perhaps worse for you is that most of your rants are rambling nonsense both poorly constructed and poorly thought out.

One Self wrote:
One wonders if jack is even capable of clarity. He thinks that by labeling someone he has figured him out! His collection of labels are ,follower, worshiper,what else? Asshole,supporter of trump . He doesn't know that his words are as empty and meaningless as his mind is.:-)

One Self wrote:
So this is a christian church oppose to other churches according to Mr Anti -everything . He is anti -Krishnamurti ,anti -Christ, Anti- Idiot, Anti Goodman, and at last anti -oneself , ?????

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 23 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #119
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 518 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I ask if there “can there be a silence - a break in the stream of thought - at the very moment when anger or fear arises”.

Dan McDermott wrote:
If at that moment, there is no 'effort' to replace (escape) what is recognized as 'anger' or 'fear'...no movement away to their 'opposites' ...no movement away from 'what is'... no movement to 'become' other than 'what is'. That is the ending of 'anger' and 'fear'. Yes?

The effort to change "what is" is driven by psychological time, isn't it? The unconscious thought-fear of being weak, for example, is rooted in the past, and the thought or ideal of being strong is the projected future.

So time is manufactured by thought-memory and, without time, there's no desire or effort. It is time which drives desire and effort. So without time, desire, effort, there's only what is - fear or anger. If there's only fear - without effort - it can be observed that fear ends. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #120
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Labeling. You don't see what a complete hypocrite you are do you

Let's see who is a complete hypocrite. The one who sends obscene messages to someone who doesn't even care to read his nonsense. You call me asshole in your private message. if you want I can post it here for everyone to see what kind of a person you are. I don't even know why KFA allows you to go there and poison the foundation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 358 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)