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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 318 in total
Sun, 02 Jun 2019 #1
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

I'm going to read The Future Of Humanity. I thought you might like to read along, too. You can find it here: https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti/Jiddu_K...

As I read, I'm going to comment and I hope you do, too. Perhaps we can together follow a K dialogue and go into some of the questions that come up.

I'll start off by saying that, to me, David Bohm was often one of the very best to dialogue with K. Why? Well, for one thing K respected him. He realized he was a very smart scientist. K was kind with others. But some were sycophants and didn't really challenge him much. Bohm listened closely, intelligently, and frequently asked K to clarify where a common sense view seemed to differ from K's. That's super helpful.

Bohm also respected K and felt that K had deep insights. But later in his life he grew disillusioned with K and they had a falling out. At the time of the dialogues, they respected each other, listened to each other, challenged each other, and brought out great points.

I'm going to read the long unedited versions that begin on page 69. No point at looking at only the parts someone else thought were important when we can see the whole thing and the contexts.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jun 2019 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Now the first word out K's mouth is...

"I"

The second word is...

"thought"

You may not see any irony in that, but I do.

"I thought we were going to talk about the future of man."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Jun 2019 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

So two humans are having a conversation. They don't begin by saying the self doesn't exist so there is no one to have a conversation with. They take it for granted that two human organisms can converse. The organisms may or may not have a sense of self as it is commonly understood. But they certainly can talk together and go into questions together. And perhaps this might have an impact on us. Us, being human organisms that exist, and who may or may not have a sense of self, whatever that means.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 02 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #4
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Now one of the first questions they address is what a young person might do in these crisis times. DB says he might not go into science if he were starting today. K says science is helping. DB disagrees.

It's interesting to notice that they take completely opposite sides on the issue but they don't linger in argument. They remain friendly and continue to investigate other angles. Can we learn from this?

Does science help or hurt us? Obviously both. We can't go back to a pre-science civilization, even if we wanted to. Science is here to stay. So obviously we need to ethically use it. This is a huge challenge. Fortunately, only a limited number of entities control nuclear science, so we haven't yet blown ourselves up. But there are many other dangers. Profit seems to incentivize the use of science for short term gain at the expense of long term well-being for the planet. But publicity is a factor, too. If a company pollutes like crazy it doesn't project a very good image and hopefully there are consequences.

So science is a tool that can be used for good or ill. It's not so much the problem. The problem is humanity and its short attention span. Some people misuse the tool of science for short term gain. Others may realize this but have little power to do anything about it. All this feeds ecological disaster.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #5
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Next DB suggests that going beyond the self might help a young person decide how to earn a living in this crisis:

JK: Are you saying one should really forget oneself for the time being

DB: Yes.

JK: Even if I did forget myself and when I look at this world in which I am going to live, and have some kind of career or a profession, and the unemployment. What would I do? This is a problem that I think most young people are facing.


So K says that there must be the practical taking care of yourself, of earning a livelihood. Forgetting the self is not going to change the need for activity to take care of food, shelter, etc.

Aren't we often quick to jump to the solution of "no self?" K is not having that shortcut here.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Next they go into "psychological evolution." K says there is no such thing.

What does he mean? Most of us think we can make an effort to be a little nicer or improve in some way. Can't we improve?

What is psychological evolution and why does K reject it?

The normal view is continuity: the present proceeds from the past and there is movement into the future. The radical view K presents is discontinuity. Freedom from the past and and from the future, in the now.

There is no gradual step by step process to reach this radical departure. Because that again implies the continuity of time. So there must be an immediate rupture.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #7
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

JK: That me is not different from my consciousness.

DB: Yes. Well someone might feel - well I think one could say that I am my consciousness for if I am not conscious I am not here.

JK: Of course.


Here, K and DB have very casually taken an enormous step!

At night I go to sleep. At some point I lose consciousness. They are saying that at that moment I don't exist!

Now psychologically that is true. Since I am unconscious for that part of sleep, I don't exist to myself. But if someone else walked into the room and saw me sleeping, I would exist to them. Physically the organism exists. Psychologically it has vanished.

This is so, so important. There is a separate organism, even when the self is dissolved. But the psychological separateness is gone.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #8
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Another question that arose in reading this was about the brain's relation to the consciousness with its contents.

K says consciousness IS its content. Which is radical.

DB says, wait, can you explain? Ordinarily, we think of the glass and the water inside, container and content. Most people see consciousness and the content of consciousness as separate. K says no! Consciousness is its content.

Scientifically this makes no sense. But it is the psychological feeling of the awakened mind: There is no separation between consciousness and its content. The observer is the observed.

Again K is coming from the psychological which can be quite different from the physical. It's very important to get this nuance.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #9
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1468 posts in this forum Offline

I read 15 pages of the future of humanity. (Many thanks to idiot). Professor Bohm and professor Krishnamurti are having a serious discussion and they know that their students will read them with skepticism.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #10
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

As an aside to our reading of The Future Of Humanity, I want to say that once I was in Ojai and I heard someone speaking about how it was his job to edit some Krishnamurti - David Bohm dialogues. He mentioned that there was at least one conversation where DB seemed to come out on top. In other words, in one conversation DB seemed to make the more salient points and insightful comments. This was troubling to the editor and others responsible for release of K materials. I can't remember whether they decided to hide that dialogue away and not release it, or whether they edited it in such a way as to turn things around. In any case, I found these remarks quite disturbing.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 04 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #11
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.

JK: That's right. That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think thought can solve every problem.


Don't we all love to complain about politicians? But guess who elects them? That would be us.

Anyway, I suppose it's true that politicians approach problems with thought. Some also with prayer. Would anyone who talked like K ever get elected? I don't think so.


DB:...there is a very strong predisposition, feeling, tendency, to feel that way, that thought can do anything.

JK: Anything. It can't. See what it has done in the world.

DB: Well I agree that is has done some terrible things but that doesn't prove that it is always wrong. You see maybe you could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly, you see.

JK: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited, therefore whatever it does is limited.


Now the implication of what K is saying is that there is something that is not thought that is unlimited. And this unlimited can, in some way, solve problems in some unlimited way. Is that so?

It may or may not be. But clearly we cannot know this unlimited, if it exists, by means of thought.

In other words, the conversation has reached the point where we are thinking about something beyond thinking.

K is condemning thought as limited, incomplete. The implication is that there is the unlimited, the complete, which is beyond thought. But we cannot know, at least by means of thought, if this is so or not.

Also, there are some people who will take this "unlimited, beyond thought" to mean "God," in some way or another. And that brings up another can of worms.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 04 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #12
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

JK: That is fairly simple: because whatever action is born of limited thought must breed conflict, inevitably.

DB: Yes.

JK: Like dividing humanity into geographically - into nationalities and so on and so on and so on, religiously, has created havoc in the world.


Since thought can only be partial, incomplete, limited, fragmented, then inevitably it must be conflictual, the one limited part against the other. The nature of thought is to divide, which is conflict, which is what we have in the world. This is K 101.


JK: The very division creates insecurity.


They are also discussing security. What is security? Doesn't it mean trying not to have fear? And K is saying that thought is division. And division is fear, that is one fragment fears another: my country fears yours, etc. Division creates insecurity.

Again this is K 101, and anyone here in this forum is familiar with it. Nevertheless, do we fully understand the implication? Every single thought we think puts us at odds, puts us in conflict! Yet I cannot seem to stop my thinking! What to do?!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

DB: Yes, we have to get this clear. You see if I say this is a table which is limited, it creates no conflict - right?

JK: No, there is no conflict there.

DB: Now when I say this is me that creates conflict.

JK: The me is a divisive entity.


They zip by this but to me this is very interesting.

There are places where K talks about non-recognition, where even seeing a table as an item that is distinct from totality...

What happens when I call something a "table?" There is a dismissal, isn't there? I am no longer looking at the table, discovering its pattern of wood grain, its curves and its shape, whether someone once spilled something on it, and so on. By calling it a "table," the brain departs from discovery, puts it in a category with other tables, and judges it to be unimportant. That way the brain can focus on what it considers important.

This is something that we all do, that we have to do. Can you imagine if you gave importance of discovery to every object around you right now? The brain would overload! It's actually a good experiment. But in normal activity, can we be lost in minute discovery of the pencil on the desk? I've never taken LSD but apparently that is what happens when people do. Perhaps this getting lost in surrounding detail is good to explore at some point, but not when you have a job to get done.

So even calling a table a "table," involves division, the separating out of a part from the whole. We need to do this to live practically. DB and K are focused on the big source of division: the me.


DB: Yes. Whereas to create division between me and the table is not dangerous because in some sense we are not one.

JK: Me and the tree - of course.


Apparently K is not saying, "I am one with the tree." On the contrary, he is saying he is separate from the tree and this separateness is not a dangerous division, yes?

Many people think that the enlightened state is to be one with the tree. K doesn't seem to say that here.

On the other hand, he does seem to say that each one of us is one with humanity, in the sense that we essentially all have the same problems, so we share responsibility in the solution of those problems.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 04 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Jun 2019 #14
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

When I was young and in college, I was very deeply influenced by Krishnamurti. I would write papers for my classes and sometimes bring in philosophical ideas from Eastern religions or Krishnamurti. Often I'd get very good grades, in part from bringing in approaches that were fresh. Yet I remember that once a professor wrote on my paper a comment beginning with my first name, "Don't stop thinking." Obviously I had written something about going beyond thought, transcending tradition, or whatever, which was fine. But the professor was reminding me that thinking deeply was also important.

You know, a lot of the nonsense we fill our minds with on a daily basis is a waste: He said, she said. Superficial worries. Replays of interactions. Rehearsals for upcoming interactions. Pop songs that we play over and over in our heads. Stories we tell ourselves. Images. A lot of this is needless nonsense taking us away from present reality. And just putting us in conflict.

But there is also really thinking deeply about important matters. What's really going on in the world? What's really going on in my life? How can I apply my mind deeply in creative work?

Now look at David Bohm. He spent his life thinking deeply. He was a leading theoretical physicist. He dove very deeply into the fundamental functioning of matter and energy in a way that most of us can't even imagine. He really, really used his brain.

And yet he was open to K and going beyond the brain. He wanted to do so carefully, both for his own understanding and ours.

And so when K says that thought is limited and can never move outside its circle, DB says wait a minute. Because he has thought outside of the known physics of his day and taken it further.

And how do you and I approach and investigate K? We think about it, don't we? We think deeply about whether it is true or false. We can go to where K points, beyond thought, into silent awareness, and hopefully we do. But we also think deeply along the way. And K even asks us to: "Think on these things."

So I am older. Thought has a place. Still openness where thought has quieted to silence is vital. This really is the foundation. But thought - not the nonsensical waste of personal mental rambles - but really thinking into issues, also has a place.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 05 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Jun 2019 #15
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1468 posts in this forum Offline

I am up to page 30. DB is constantly learning new things from JK . Most of the things that they talked about were unknown then. Now one is sure that thought is limited and is in constant conflict . Can conflict end conflict? Can war lead to peace? Obviously not but most people think otherwise. They think thought can solve all of the problems that it has created in the world . We are saying it can't.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #16
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
DB is constantly learning new things from JK .

this seems to me to be a wrong view of the state of affairs.
an investigation is underway between two people and new insights are emerging.
It is therefore the result of the inquiry and not one learns from the other.

That is a subtle but essential difference !
you are breaking up a whole in fragments !

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #17
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5765 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
That is a subtle but essential difference !
you are breaking up a whole in fragments !

Wim, your above statement is a very insightful. Doesn't thought always fragment the whole? From the beginning this thread has been based on one or two person's narrow, conditioned thought process. Opinion. No one can translate for us what K was pointing out. We have to read it ourselves while dealing with our own fragmented thinking. Why read K and then come to conclusions based on your thought when you know that thought is fragmented, incomplete and heavily conditioned?

K points out in this book, or maybe in something else by him I read recently, that if you listen to what he is saying and think about it later you won't see what he was saying. If you don't see it as you read or hear it thinking about it later is not going to improve your understanding.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 06 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #18
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5765 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
They think thought can solve all of the problems that it has created in the world . We are saying it can't

Yet you used thought to interpret what you read in the dialogue between K and Bohm. Do you see the inconsistency and contradiction here?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #19
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1468 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
They think thought can solve all of the problems that it has created in the world . We are saying it can't.

For example Jack(Since he wants to be personal) is the problem in this site . No matter what you think or say Jack sustains his image in here. He talks from that image which we call the "me". The "me" cannot be eliminated by any thought. That is the problem .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #20
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5765 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
They think thought can solve all of the problems that it has created in the world . We are saying it can't.

Actually I didn't write the quote you attributed to me in your above post #19 which is also at the top of this post. It was your quote from a one of your recent posts above. What I wrote is below:

Yet you used thought to interpret what you read in the dialogue between K and Bohm. Do you see the inconsistency and contradiction here?

Once again; do you see how confusing and conflicting thought can be?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 06 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #21
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
an investigation is underway between two people and new insights are emerging.
It is therefore the result of the inquiry and not one learns from the other.

True. That is the point of good dialogue. But it is also true K and DB are... I hesitate to say playing different roles, because it's not exactly that. But how each talks is different. By and large they are exploring K's philosophy, not DB's. By and large, DB is working to clarify what K is saying.

Here's a simple thought experiment: What if someone switched "JK" and "DB" in the dialogue? You would know right away! K sounds like K. DB sounds like DB. You could recognize, over the course of the dialogue, which is which, even without the labels.

So while it is true that insights are emerging in the dialogue, it is also true that K and DB are functioning differently in how they are participating.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 06 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #22
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
K points out in this book, or maybe in something else by him I read recently, that if you listen to what he is saying and think about it later you won't see what he was saying. If you don't see it as you read or hear it thinking about it later is not going to improve your understanding.

Jack Pine, when you wrote the above, you were not trying to interpret K. You were paraphrasing him as best as you remember, since you don't have an exact quote handy.

Anyone reading carefully what you wrote will reserve judgment. K may have said something like that or he may not have. That's Jack Pine's understanding. Until I see an exact K quote, I won't agree or disagree that it's something K said.

In this thread, when I have quoted from the book The Future of Humanity, and when I have expressed my own view is crystal clear. The quotes have "DB" and "JK." My views don't. You may not agree with my view and that's fine. You can consider it misinterpretation and that's fine. But the point is that we discuss the book and K. The point is that we express views and understandings. The point is NOT that we attack people here. That only reflects on the attacker.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 06 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #23
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5765 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Anyone reading carefully what you wrote will reserve judgment. K may have said something like that or he may not have. That's Jack Pine's understanding. Until I see an exact K quote, I won't agree or disagree that it's something K said.

OK, that's fair enough. I usually do give citations because I think they are important. I also think I read that in THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY but it also could have been in the ENDING OF TIME, which I'm re-reading now . The reason given by K for, basically, not waiting and thinking about it later was that if you're going to have an insight into what he is saying it will be when you are actually reading or hearing it. You may read the same thing a dozen times but then suddenly you may get an insight into what K is pointing out. When you wait and think about it then thinking has more of a chance to pollute what K said with it's own conditioning, misunderstanding or whatever. If you don't mind if you do find where K says this would you let me know what page it's on? I'd appreciate it.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 10 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Jun 2019 #24
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1468 posts in this forum Offline

DB: Now suppose "A" sees something and most of the rest of mankind
does not. Then, it seems, one could say mankind is in a sense dreaming,
asleep.
JK: It is caught in illusion.
DB: Illusion. And the point is that, if somebody sees something, his
responsibility is to help awaken the others out of the illusions.
JK: That is just it. This has been the problem. That is why the Buddhists
have projected the idea of the Bodhisattva, who is the essence of all
compassion, and is waiting to save humanity. It sounds nice. It is a happy
feeling that there is somebody doing this. But in actuality we won't do anything
that is not comfortable, satisfying, secure, both psychologically and physically.
DB: That is basically the source of the illusion.
JK: How does one make others see all this? They haven't time, they
haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be amused.
How does one make "X" see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right,
I have got it, I will work. And I see I am responsible," and all the rest of it. I
think that is the tragedy of those who see and those who don't.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Jun 2019 #25
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

One Self quoted The Future of Humanity:
JK: How does one make others see all this? They haven't time, they
haven't the energy, they haven't even the inclination. They want to be amused.
How does one make "X" see this whole thing so clearly that he says, "All right,
I have got it, I will work. And I see I am responsible," and all the rest of it. I think that is the tragedy of those who see and those who don't.

Great quote.

Well, JK, how does one make others see all this? Any "way" to make others see is a method, isn't it? And we all know there is no method.

So you might end up talking for seven or eight decades and no one getting it. That is the tragedy of JK.

Personally, I am grateful that K talked and talked. It had an impact. And some get it to one degree or another. But in my opinion, it takes real meditation. Not that meditation is a means. But without it, there are some nice ideas and a few improvements. Only with it, is it in the bones.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Jun 2019 #26
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1468 posts in this forum Offline

I think we don't need to worry about how the one who sees and so on. We all don't see and we all don't feel responsible. That is how it is today. Humanity has declined and is declining .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jun 2019 #27
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5765 posts in this forum Offline

Ideas and opinions expressed in endless conclusions but no perception of what K is pointing out. Just excuses why it can't be done.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jun 2019 #28
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
True. That is the point of good dialogue. But it is also true K and DB are... I hesitate to say playing different roles, because it's not exactly that. But how each talks is different. By and large they are exploring K's philosophy, not DB's. By and large, DB is working to clarify what K is saying.

So here is another question with a kind of simular situation.
Look at an analogue clock, is it the long or the short pointer who makes up the time, or is it the mechanic who drives those pointers, or is the person who made the clock, or is it the person who read the clock.

To me it's the interplay of all the elements that determine the accuracy of the whole.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jun 2019 #29
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 891 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But in my opinion, it takes real meditation. Not that meditation is a means. But without it, there are some nice ideas and a few improvements. Only with it, is it in the bones.

Hello idiot?. Perhaps you could elaborate on this a little.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jun 2019 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 690 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation is one of the very most important things K points to. When he gave multi-day talks, he saved the topic of meditation for the last day, building up to it.

Meditation makes K teaching real and not just theoretical, not just intellectual.

I've talked with many people interested in Krishnamurti and some of them really do investigate meditation, but many, many, many do not: "You mean, sit like Buddhists for hours on end? No thank you, that sounds dreadful." And then they might claim that K said that you can't deliberately do meditation, that it must be spontaneous, and then they wonder why after reading a mountain of K books that meditation doesn't spontaneously happen.

Read Think On These Things, the beginning of Chapter 5 which you can find here:
https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti/Jiddu_K...

Read the article Meeting Krishnamurti, available right here on kinfonet:
http://www.kinfonet.org/articles/38-meeting-kri... where Larry Rosenberg says K taught him meditation:

Larry Rosenberg in the interview Meeting Krishnamurti:
About a day or two before it was time for him to leave Brandeis, on one of the walks, he stopped and said, "Pick out anything. A plant, a leaf, a flower, part of a tree. See if you can look at it for a few minutes without labeling it, naming it or thinking about it. Simply, with innocence, as if for the first time, just take a look at it. Let's do that for a while." He didn't say how long.

...

He said, "OK. Now, when you want to meditate, just sit down and do the same thing with your mind." And that was it. [laughs] Period. And we resumed the walk.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 09 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 318 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.)