Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 661 - 690 of 790 in total
Fri, 12 May 2017 #661
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
But did he ever stop saying that it was arduous? No he didn't. So you see, he never 'ditched' the idea of a requirement for effort at all. You've just rigged things up to make it look as if he did (as ever, I'd suggest, for your ends).

Yes, he used the word 'arduous.' That is not the same as 'effort.' The difference has been pawed over many times on Knet. I suggest you find out why.

But the idea that K "never 'ditched' the idea of a requirement for effort" is totally wrong. Just go to jkonline and search 'effort' and see how K approached the subject. Here is a link

And here is an example from 1959 of his teaching on the subject of effort:

"As I was saying, if we do not understand the nature of effort, all action is limiting. Effort creates its own frontiers, its own objectives, its own limitations. Effort has the time-binding quality. You say, ''I must meditate, I must make an effort to control my mind.'' That very effort to control puts a limit on your mind. Do watch this, do think it out with me. To live with effort is evil; to me it is an abomination, if I may use a strong word. And if you observe, you will realize that from childhood on we are conditioned to make an effort. In our so-called education, in all the work we do, we struggle to improve ourselves, to become something. Everything we undertake is based on effort, and the more effort we make, the duller the mind becomes.

"So there can be a radical change only when there is the cessation of effort. Most of us are conditioned to make an effort in order to produce the change, and that is why there is no real change at all. Such effort merely produces a modification, with its own limitations.

"To live with effort is evil; to me it is an abomination" That is what K said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #662
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Do yourself a favor and read the book

I read all his works, and those of his wife, Cristina.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #663
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K himself had no idea how to bring about this change of consciousness.

and yet Huxley was there with him for years with his little pills or whatever. Perhaps K should have given up the teaching and joined the Tim Leary circus.

I am simply surprised that LSD is still being touted as a means for transformation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #664
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
If anyone prefers the early K, that's fine by me. But please don't try to ram down anyone's throat that the early K is the real K and the later K is a watered down version to appeal to the masses

It is not a watered down version. It is the same teaching expressed in a different language, in which any talk of God, of Life, is veiled and concealed, but present implicitly nevertheless. It is a castrated version, because K meticulously avoids any mysticism (the union with Life, with the totality). He did this to prevent his listeners from developing wrong concepts.

Rumi (I read the whole Whinfield translation) talks about the raw and the ripe. The raw are those people who are not ready for the teachings (for the mystical union with God), the ripe are those, who are ready. K himself expressed manytimes that he would prefer 2-3 who really understand to thousands of blind followers. The Theosofists were so entangled in their conditionings, in their delusions, that they were hopeless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #665
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I am simply surprised that LSD is still being touted as a means for transformation.

where?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #666
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, at those times when he was saying no effort is necessary... that effort is always self serving. Well, it can't be both, can it? Yet at one time he is quoted saying "And very few of us realize that the self-centered activity of effort does not clear up any of our problems. On the contrary, it increases our confusion and our misery and our sorrow." and at other times he says it's "arduous"...difficult. Well it's arduous because we are in the false habit...that we can't get rid of...of making effort....not that effort is necessary, however.

The reason I support the view that the teachings are essentially always the same from the earliest days is that the mutation, the 'arrival' of Insight (capital 'I'), is a one-off irreversible event. I am not just saying that off my own back, K says it himself. Lower case 'i' insight can effect a person numerous times but it is not the same thing, it never represents a mutation. So, by his own assertion, either K was 'enlightened' early on when he himself said he was or he wasn't until the mid 1940's period and the teachings began then. That is not to exclude development of any sort in the interim years, but Insight is Insight and is always the same. If it were not so then there can be no such thing as truth. An absurd notion.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #667
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
This giving up of will came always after an intense struggle to achieve. Then, at the end, you realize that you cannot really achieve anything, so you give up.

I understand that explanation, Jan, having heard it many, many times before. All I'm saying is that up until the early 1930's K went along with it, to an ever-decreasing extent and then, post-WW2 he rejected it totally. I am saying there was a radical change in that aspect of the teaching and it is only AFTER that change that the teaching is said to have began. Now, one can pit K the younger against K the older and where do we get?

Usually, a sign of conservatism goes with aging, the older being less radical than the younger (take Hegel as an example). But in K's case, his views radicalised as he matured. K the elder is more radical than the Theosophy-influenced K the younger. This increased radicalisation shows that the issue was not age but understanding, with which came new clarity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #668
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

@#664 Jan Kasol wrote:
It is not a watered down version. It is the same teaching expressed in a different language, in which any talk of God, of Life, is veiled and concealed, but present implicitly nevertheless. It is a castrated version, because K meticulously avoids any mysticism (the union with Life, with the totality). He did this to prevent his listeners from developing wrong concepts.

Rumi (I read the whole Whinfield translation) talks about the raw and the ripe. The raw are those people who are not ready for the teachings (for the mystical union with God), the ripe are those, who are ready. K himself expressed manytimes that he would prefer 2-3 who really understand to thousands of blind followers. The Theosofists were so entangled in their conditionings, in their delusions, that they were hopeless.

An excellent contribution, Jan, if you don't mind me saying so.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #669
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
It is a castrated version, because K meticulously avoids any mysticism (the union with Life, with the totality).

So, K castrated his teaching to please the masses?

No, K rejected the mystical because he said he saw it for what it was.

"So to see is to act instantly and that's not a mystical state. It is the most practical state. When you see a snake you don't gradually see the danger of it. No, no, please, sir, look what is involved in it. There has been conditioning for centuries upon centuries that the snake is dangerous, that has conditioned you and that conditioning responds instantly when you meet a snake, which is a natural form of self-protection, that is the intelligence, not fear. It's intelligence that operates when you see a snake and you recoil, go away or whatever you do. Now, you don't see the poisonous nature of nationalism. I'm taking that as an example, silly example. Why? Because you have been conditioned by propaganda, by waving of the flag, everybody talking my country and your country and at the same time, you know if you look at it very carefully, the danger of it, you are destroying. When there are divisions like this you will have less food, less clothing. There is only one solution, that is unity of mankind, one Government, one way, computers will organise this, not these politicians. So you see and therefore act instantly and that is the most practical thing to do. And therefore the thing that we are talking about is not some kind of mystical, romantic, fanciful state but it is intelligence, direct perception and therefore action. All the time perception and acting, all the time so that there is no interval between the two."

and . . .

"So, experience is not a measure, is not the way to reality because, after all, we experience according to our belief, according to our conditioning, and that belief is obviously an escape from ourselves. To know myself, I need not have any belief; I only have to watch myself, clearly and choicelessly - watch myself in relationship, watch myself in escape, watch myself in attachment. And one has to watch oneself without any prejudice, without any conclusion, without any determination. In that passive awareness one discovers this extraordinary sense of aloneness. I am sure most of you have felt this - the sense of complete emptiness which nothing can fill. It is only in abiding in that state, when all values have utterly ceased, it is only when we are capable of being alone and facing that aloneness without any sense of escape - only then does reality come into being. Because, values are merely the result of our conditioning; like experience, they are based on a belief and are a hindrance to the understanding of reality. But, that is an arduous task, which most of us are unwilling to go through. So we cling to experiences - mystical, superstitious, the experiences of relationship, of so-called love, and the experiences of possession. These become very significant because it is of these that we are made. We are made of beliefs, of conditionings, of environmental influences - that is our background. And from that background, we judge, we value. And when one goes through, understands, the whole process of this background, then one comes to a point where one is utterly alone. One must be alone to find reality - which does not mean escape, withdrawal from life. On the contrary, it is the complete intensification of life because then there is freedom from the background, from the memory of the experiences of escape. In that aloneness, in that loneliness, there is no choice, there is no fear of what is. Fear arises only when we are unwilling to acknowledge or see what is."

Or look at K's answer to the first question here

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #670
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

K did not just keep repeating himself verbatim. Rather he repeated the same things in many different ways. It is inevitable that listeners lacking his Perception will grasp the various presentations differently. I'm fairly sure that's really all we're talking about here.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #671
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

From: J. Krishnamurti Talks and Dialogues Saanen 1st Public Talk 7th July 1968

If you can do it, that is, if you can look at a tree without any "image', without any knowledge, then the observer is the observed. That does not mean he becomes the tree which would be too silly but that the distance between the"observer' and the `observed' disappears. And that is not a kind of mystical, abstract or lovely state, or that you go into an ecstasy.

When the mind discards the outward agency divine or mystical or whatever it is (which is obviously an invention of a mind that has not been able to solve the problem of freeing itself from its own conditioning) when it discards that outward agency it invents another agency, the "I', theme', the observer' who says,"I am going to get rid of my conditioning'. But in fact there is only a mind that is in a conditioned state; not the duality of a mind that says, `I am conditioned, I must be free, I must exercise will over my conditioned state; there is only a mind conditioned. Do listen to this very carefully; you will see, if you really listen with attention, with your heart, with your mind, you will see what will happen. The mind is conditioned only! there is nothing else. All psychological inventions permanent relationship, divinity, Gods, everything else are born out of this conditioned mind. There is only that and nothing else! Is that a fact to you? That is the question, it is really an extraordinarily important thing if you can come to it. Because, in the observation of that only, and nothing else, begins the sense of freedom which is the freedom from conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #672
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

From: Sixth Talk in Bombay 1950

So, you, the individual, are part of society; you are not separate from society; what you are, society is. Though society may be an entity apart from you, you have created it, and therefore you alone can change it. But instead of realizing our responsibility as individuals in the collective, we as individuals become cynical, intellectual, or mystical; we avoid our responsibility towards definite action, which must be revolutionary in the fundamental sense; and as long as the individual, which is you and I, does not take responsibility for the complete transformation of society, society will remain as it is. . . . The understanding of yourself is of primary importance if you would bring about a radical transformation in society, and the understanding of yourself is self-knowledge. Now, we have made self-knowledge into something extraordinarily difficult and remote. Religions have made self-knowledge very mystical, abstract, and far away, but if you look at it more closely, you will see that self-knowledge is very simple and demands simple attention in relationship - and it is essential if there is to be a fundamental revolution in the structure of society.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #673
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

From: Third Talk in Seattle 1950

Most of us have had some kind of mystical experience which has brought a certain clarity, a certain release, a certain happiness, and when it has passed, the memory of it becomes very important to us. We cling to the memory of that experience, and the very fact that we cling to it indicates that we are caught in illusion. Memory is within the field of time, and what is true is beyond time; and when the mind holds to any particular experience, that experience becomes mere sensation, and sensation makes for illusions. So, when we cling to the memory of any so-called "mystical experience" which we may have had, it indicates that we are concerned with the sensation that the experience has left behind, and therefore there is illusion. We cannot ever cling to the experience itself; we can never hold on to the state of experiencing. We can only accumulate memory, with its sensations, and when we do, we create a hindrance to further experiencing. Clinging to the past prevents the new, and so this attachment to the memory of a particular experience creates illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #674
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

From: 1st Public Talk Paris 16th April 1967

t seems to me that one must have this seriousness to begin to enquire into oneself, healthily, not neurotically. Because what I am is the world; the world as it is, is what I am; the individual as well as the collective: I am all that. This is not some mystical state, this is an actual daily fact. I am greedy and I have created a world that is greedy; I am acquisitive, I am anxious, I am violent, I am competitive, and I have created a psychological structure of a society in which it is possible for those things to express themselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #675
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
No, K rejected the mystical because he said he saw it for what it was.

no, google Krishnamurti for words like sacred, or sacredness, or bliss. For Krishnamurti, the whole reality is sacred, because once you remove this sense of self, sense of separateness, sense of "I" and "not I", you are that. Then you realize that Life is one unity. Is is no illusion. The division created by thought is illusioury. Then you observer creation. And this creation is sacred. Krishnamurti was a mystic at heart, who veiled and concealed any sense of mysticism in order not to mislead the "raw".
Of course I know very well, that the sacred is not created by thought, so you are breaking into an open door. The sacred comes in silence, when the thought stops creating (illusions), there is Creation

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #676
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
So, K castrated his teaching to please the masses?

There is no point banging on to people in terms they can't understand. When Perception (capital 'P') was new to K he simply presented what he saw. In time he saw that it was of little use to present it like that, so he adjusted. You would do the same wouldn't you? It's not a matter of 'castration', but, as has been pointed out more than just a couple of times here, neither can the adjusted version be superior in any real terms to the previous unadjusted.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #677
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
From: 1st Public Talk Paris 16th April 1967

t seems to me that one must have this seriousness to begin to enquire into oneself, healthily, not neurotically. Because what I am is the world; the world as it is, is what I am; the individual as well as the collective: I am all that. This is not some mystical state, this is an actual daily fact. I am greedy and I have created a world that is greedy; I am acquisitive, I am anxious, I am violent, I am competitive, and I have created a psychological structure of a society in which it is possible for those things to express themselves.

For a K skeptic you've started doing an awful lot of K quoting. :)

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #678
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
It's not a matter of 'castration'

Well, don't blame me, Jan said it was castration. I was questioning that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #679
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
For a K skeptic you've started doing an awful lot of K quoting. :)

Silly boy, I've always quoted K when the issue is about what he said. I've never quoted K as an authority or to back up my own views. In this case K was clear that consciousness is its content, which is the opposite of what you said. I was making clear the difference between you and K on this cardinal point. Then we went onto effort, goals and becoming. What amazes me is peoples need to cloak their own theories in K's teaching when they are so different. The issue then came up about the early K versus the late K. First it was said that they were the same, then it was said that the later K was a castrated version of the early K . . . and so on and so on. The effort to legitimise various opinions by picking at K is legendary and the legend is never-ending. You and Jan are proving that in almost every post. At least Jan has the decency to admit it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #680
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
no, google Krishnamurti for words like sacred, or sacredness, or bliss.

It is the word "mystical" that you brought in and which we are questioning, Jan. And for very good reason. K rejected that word and everything that goes with it. He did not reject sacredness or bliss, just "mysticism." He differentiated strongly between the religious mind and that of the mystic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #681
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
It is the word "mystical" that you brought in and which we are questioning, Jan. And for very good reason. K rejected that word and everything that goes with it. He did not reject sacredness or bliss, just "mysticism." He differentiated strongly between the religious mind and that of the mystic.

but all that is only a matter of language, ie completely unessential. The word mysticism has been corrupted by various pseudoreligious cranks (new age, ocultism, spiritism, chakras, healing crystals, quantum vibrations etc). But the original meaning of the word mysticism is union with the divine. Both in his early talks and in his late talks, K speaks about wearing down the sense of separation, division, the "I". Consciousness, with its sense of "I", is thought. In silence, there is no thought, and hence no consciousness in the ordinary sense. What is there? It is impossible to describe, if you have not experienced it. You can use words like Creation, Benediction, Otherness, God, Truth, Sacredness. Rumi was ingeniously creative in describing IT. But those are just words and words are dust.

Krishnamurtis last talk "No description can ever describe the origin. The origin is nameless; the origin is absolutely quiet, it is not whirring about making noise. Creation is something that is most holy, that is the most sacred thing in life, and if you have made a mess of your life, change it. Change it today, not tomorrow. If you are uncertain, find out why and be certain. If your thinking is not straight, think straight, logically, Unless all that is prepared, all that is settled, you cannot enter into this world, into the world of creation."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #682
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
There is no point banging on to people in terms they can't understand. When Perception (capital 'P') was new to K he simply presented what he saw. In time he saw that it was of little use to present it like that, so he adjusted.

That's a fair enough explanation, John. I question it because of the reasons I already stated, but we can simply agree to disagree. If one makes a god of K, then one will never admit that there could be anything misleading or 'off the mark' in the early teachings. A question here for the K experts: Didn't K often questioned his own conclusions...his own insights... or the manner in which he expressed them?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #683
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
but all that is only a matter of language, ie completely unessential.

Were it only linguistics I'd be among the first to limit it to that, but it is a difference of substance, not language.

But look, here is something interesting. You first said that K castrated his teaching in the later period by avoiding to deal with the 'mystical.' But then you contradict yourself by bringing in a quote from his last talk which you say is exactly about the 'mystical.'

Another point: you write,

Jan Kasol wrote:
the original meaning of the word mysticism is [was] union with the divine

Was it? How am I to take such a statement?

The word 'mysticism' comes from 'mystery.' It being held that one may be initiated into some sort of secret wisdom, including occult powers and unseen agencies in order that one may proceed, through stages of learning, to approach the ultimate source of all things. There were the Babylonian mysteries, the Egyptian mysteries and so on. Most religious traditions have this concept of 'mysteries' and the progress through various hierarchical stages, for example from neophytes through to adepts and eventually the magus. One one has reached the end of this process the mysteries have all been revealed to one. The source for all this is not 'New Age' but goes back to the earliest times of organised religion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #684
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
in his late talks, K speaks about wearing down the sense of separation

Does he speak of "wearing down" in his later years? Please offer a citation.

Here (1955) he talks of 'wearing down' hate. But read how he approaches that as having "no validity at all":

"The moment that reaction arises in us - how to be free - we have introduced several factors which have no validity at all. One of those factors is the process of gradually wearing down hate over a period of time; another is the making of effort to achieve a result; and still another is depending on somebody to tell us how to do it. These are all self-centered activities which are also a form of hate."

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #685
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
But those are just words and words are dust.

No, words, when used correctly, have the tremendous power to convey meanings. When used incorrectly they fall like dust. You have to choose how you wish to use words, as conveyors of meaning or as dustbowls to cloud meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #686
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Krishnamurtis last talk "No description can ever describe the origin.

Quite, but again, this whole exchange was initiated when you alleged the validity of describing the unknowable. Do you recall? It was I who pointed out to you that K had said all descriptions are sacrilege. Now you feed the same back to me as if offering me an explanation. Strange.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #687
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol quoted K:
"If your thinking is not straight, think straight"

Now, that is K at his best and I heartily agree with him.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #688
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If one makes a god of K

In which case, one is probably also using K as a mask behind which to make a God of oneself (and ones ilk).

It's like saying, 'K is perfect and I am a lessor form of that, but still far above the 'average reader' and his ilk.'

Maybe we should have a new forum specifically for the average reader, the lesser being, the blind chaff and the machines.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #689
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I imagine that after a small number of years your wife could probably see you coming from a mile away and just catches you one with the frying pan and speaks to you again when you come round. Tedious to say the least.

Not only do you attempt to offer offense, but you do it in such a male chauvinist way. Is that how you see women's role, John, the keeper of the frying pan? And you think it is others who are blind and 'waxed over?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #690
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Maybe we should have a new forum specifically for the average reader, the lesser being, the blind chaff and the machines

I think that already exists , doesn't it? It's called 'Facebook'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 661 - 690 of 790 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.)