In the mood for a fight? I am!

nimh- I think communism was a great opportunity that was botched in its execution and curttailed by an antagonistic THEIST capitalist west. I also think lenin was a pretty swell guy, but that things went downhill after he died. But I haven't studied it as much as I'd like to... my opinions might change if I had. But then again, I might just be corrupted by our propaganda (it works both ways, you know).

Bluesky, I just stated those things as interesting facts. I was hoping (and this succeeded beyond my expectations) that this would spew forth a great many illogical and unthoughtful rantings like the ones frank has been giving, that I could destroy. Of course you can't prove either way in the god debate. But you can certainly destroy llogical thoughts in an attempt to at least tear down false conceptions. I have implied earlier, and will state clearly now. My facts do NOT prove the non-existence of god. They attempt to address absurdities in my experience with the claims put forth by believers. In the face of no reason to believe, I conclude (I do not prove) that there IS reason to believe in the NON-EXISTENCE of god, contrary to frank.
And I invite you to put forth ANY REASON WHATSOEVER to believe in god.

Frank,
You forget so easily that I am the only one (of the two of us) that is trying to move the discussion of our dispute forward. This is where we are: you have a number of conflicting opinions which I have pointed out. You are using these opinions to attack my contention that there is not a god. But I have brought specific questions to your attention more than once that regard the conflicts I spoke of, and yet again, you have refused to address these questions. Here they are again:

binnyboy wrote:

...you are a fact-asserter and so am I. I am just in tune with that reality and its consequenses. Which is to say, anytime I assert a fact, I realize that I am making a guess to the question, "What is the nature of REALITY?" and asserting that guess as a fact. But we all know what you think:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And I might reiterate that I do not come up with enough evidence upon which to make a guess to the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?"

So, do you contend that you assert facts without making a guess to the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?"

Please don't forget the other question, too:

binnyboy wrote:
So, let me see if I get this right. Is the following a correct description of what you think?

You don't have a tail is a guess you can make because I just then made it up; I do not claim it was revealed to me. If I did claim it was revealed to me (and you believed me)(or guessed that I was not intentionally lying, I guess I should say, since you don't BELIEVE anything), you might have to either come up with another reason to guess I am mistaken or, as you do with the gods case, refuse to draw a conclusion about whether I am mistaken (or agree with me which would not happen).
There is not a god is a guess that you cannot make because some people claim that there is a god and they seriously claim that they have had a revelation of this.

Is this an accurate conclusion? (I am trying very hard to say something in the spirit of your thoughts.)

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

nimh- I think communism was a great opportunity that was botched in its execution and curttailed by an antagonistic capitalist west. I also think lenin was a pretty swell guy, but that things went downhill after he died.

Hm. I believe he was a putschist, and the so-called "October Revolution" (unlike the "February Revolution") a carefully orchestrated coup d'etat. I think of him as a ruthless dictator, who signed orders edging his secret service on to arrest and murder quotas of people, and had most all opposition politicians arrested, whether they be Czarists or liberals or Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists or Mensheviks. Among whom, notably, scores of parliamentarians who were apprehended as they gathered for the first time after the only free elections Russia had ever had (and would have until 1992 - and in which Lenins Bolsheviks had received just a quarter of the vote). I think of Lenin as a mass-murderer, who wilfully created mass famine in the provinces by disowning even poor peasants, and having the Civil War-era harvest requisitioned for the politically more important cities. A mass murderer who ruthlessly clamped down on everyone who rose up against his incipient dictatorship in that Civil War - not just the Czarist Whites, but also the nations who had used the February Revolution to establish their own independence or autonomy and the peasants who revolted during the famine, after the Whites had already been defeated. I think of him as the man under whose leadership the first concentration camps of Soviet Russia were established.

Anyway, that on an aside. I was just wondering whether you were serious, or used the avatar more in a flippant, camp or historical-curiosity kind of way.

0 Replies

nope... like I say, I am serious about thinking communism was a missed opportunity, but only have a very slanted set of "facts" on which to base an opinion of lenin. Those "facts" certainly lead to the same conclusion you have stated. But it is my opinion that these "facts" have their origins in all the rich retards that didn't want to have their property confiscated when the time came. I have read a NUMBER of accounts of people as kids whose families thought they were suffering a great indignation when their stuff got jacked and redistributed. It is my opinion that being iron-fisted is a positive quality when it is directed toward the defense of something like "equal share for everyone". As for the suppression of political enemies, what else was he supposed to do? It's not like he has been elected by a majority... if you don't have a democracy, this is a problem that will crop up. I also think that concentration camps are a good thing if justice is served when people are sent there. Jews didn't deserve it but it's a good place for some people to be. Furthermore, I don't believe that much in democracy. Look where we are today Rolling Eyes

.
You think WE couldn't do a better job? Or university professors? There's a large number of women that vote on looks for goodness sake! But forgive me; this is off topic. If you want, we can start a different thread for it.

0 Replies

I don't think we would be able to find much common ground ... I mean, we could argue about whom exactly was disowned (not just "rich retards", but also hardscrabble peasants who had just the cow and few chickens), but considering the more fundamental elements of where we disagree, that would probably be irrelevant. I don't believe concentration camps are ever a good idea - and I believe that, if anything, they represent the stuff that would corrupt any sincere or positive goal or motivation one may have had initially. It's been some time since I last saw someone use the argument that Lenin's Bolsheviks didn't command anything like the support of a majority in defence of how he put his opponents in prison, in any case.

One last question, perhaps. How would you justify Lenin's persecution of fellow socialists? Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Bundists, whatever - all people who also believed in an "equal share for everyone", but merely disagreed with Lenin about how to execute and follow up the revolution (or simply felt uneasy within the sectarian Bolshevik clique)? Those represented the majority of his opponents and the majority of the post-coup political prisoners, after all ...

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Quote:
Bluesky, I just stated those things as interesting facts. I was hoping (and this succeeded beyond my expectations) that this would spew forth a great many illogical and unthoughtful rantings like the ones frank has been giving, that I could destroy.

The two major problems with that paragraph are...

1)...most of the comments I have made have not been in any way illogical or unthoughtful...and...

2)...you have not laid a glove on any of the logical, thoughtful comments I have made.

That latter is mostly because you apparently do not have the guts to actually deal with the comments...and don't have the ethics or honesty to acknowledge that you don't.

Quote:

Frank,
You forget so easily that I am the only one (of the two of us) that is trying to move the discussion of our dispute forward.

No, Bin, you are attempting to sidetrack the discussion by evading the questions I have asked by raising a bunch of red herrings...even though I have attempted to respond to every question you have asked.

But that was already apparent from that little discussion we had earlier about the sentence you mangled.

In any case, I will repeat my original attempt to "move the discussion along."

Quote:

Let's take this right from the beginningso we can see just how anxious you are to stick with the issues.

Here is a questionwhich is a component of the question "What is the nature of REALITY?"

Is there a God (or gods)or are there no gods?

My answer to the question is clear, decisive, and to the point:

I do not know if there is a GodI also do not know if there are no godsand I do not see enough evidence that points in either direction that persuades me to guess in one direction or the other.

You, on the other hand, have offered: "I do not know"and"For certain there are no gods."

(And you presume to infer that I am fence straddling!)

So let's discuss this, Binand pleaseno red herringsat least for a little while.

When are you going to deal with this, Bin?

Is there a God (or gods)...or are there no gods?

I've already given my answer.

It is at the essence of everything being discussed here.

Or are you gonna do more red herring filibustering?

0 Replies

Quote:

My facts do NOT prove the non-existence of god.

Good. I think we all can agree on that.

Quote:

In the face of no reason to believe, I conclude (I do not prove) that there IS reason to believe in the NON-EXISTENCE of god

That is your choice of belief. So now we are talking about what to believe in absence of proof.

Quote:

And I invite you to put forth ANY REASON WHATSOEVER to believe in god.

I tend to believe that love/affinity is one of the many footprints of God. This is so ubiquitous and all powerful entity acting thru entire creation. And I (for myself) can even see plenty of evidence of that, perhaps even in you manifesting for now as the love of your atheist position. But we are not talking about generic proofs anymore.

0 Replies

hmmmmm maybe I'm wrong.

But maybe said opponents were off the mark on how to implement things (or at least they were perceived by the ones with the power as being off the mark), and were very insistent upon their POV. This goes back to my assertion that democracy isn't all that great. Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. So what happens when you just CANT come to an agreement? I am reminded here in Texas of several months ago, when the democrats all left to New Mexico and stayed in a hotel there to stop a quorum from being met in protest of the illegal special session governor Rick Perry called. But the dems were the ones that got fined a thousand dollars a day or something like that; maybe 5K; (they only get paid 7K a year, I'm pretty sure, which is a whole different stupid story) until they came back and acquiesced. Because here the repubs are in major charge. So what would happen if they were even more in charge, like in a dictatorship? They would clearly just dismiss the dems. To the repubs here they are just dunces that can't see the light of day.
So... that seems to me to be the only justification... it is just what seemed best to Lenin. I doubt he would have done it out of spite alone. And like I say, maybe it wasn't the best choice. I'm not saying I think he was infallible on the choices he made. But I think HE thinks it was the best choice, in which case the only way we can fault him is in his poor judgment. The reason I have that picture is because I think that it is an inspiring picture of a man expounding his heart. It looks like he is laying out some point of logic that he knows people will connect with.

0 Replies

I'm sorry, what round are we at...and who's winning? Smile

0 Replies

Looks like round 11. And I think given Frank's childish accusation of unethical debating and lying, I've got the upper hand at the moment.

0 Replies

ding ding ding...let the fight continue....

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Looks like round 11. And I think given Frank's childish accusation of unethical debating and lying, I've got the upper hand at the moment.

I'm still waiting for something of substance instead of continuous insults and evasions.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

2)...you have not laid a glove on any of the logical, thoughtful comments I have made.

That latter is mostly because you apparently do not have the guts to actually deal with the comments...and don't have the ethics or honesty to acknowledge that you don't.

Quote:
Frank,
You forget so easily that I am the only one (of the two of us) that is trying to move the discussion of our dispute forward.

No, Bin, you are attempting to sidetrack the discussion by evading the questions I have asked by raising a bunch of red herrings...even though I have attempted to respond to every question you have asked.

But that was already apparent from that little discussion we had earlier about the sentence you mangled.

In any case, I will repeat my original attempt to "move the discussion along."

Quote:
Let's take this right from the beginningso we can see just how anxious you are to stick with the issues.

Here is a questionwhich is a component of the question "What is the nature of REALITY?"

Is there a God (or gods)or are there no gods?

My answer to the question is clear, decisive, and to the point:

I do not know if there is a GodI also do not know if there are no godsand I do not see enough evidence that points in either direction that persuades me to guess in one direction or the other.

You, on the other hand, have offered: "I do not know"and"For certain there are no gods."

(And you presume to infer that I am fence straddling!)

So let's discuss this, Binand pleaseno red herringsat least for a little while.

When are you going to deal with this, Bin?

Is there a God (or gods)...or are there no gods?

I've already given my answer.

It is at the essence of everything being discussed here.

Or are you gonna do more red herring filibustering?

You already know my answer to this question. I have stated it several times, and you have quoted me. I have explained it and why it is more consistent than your BELIEF SET. You are the one being unethical here, presenting that I have not addressed your question. I repeat, I have, and you have quoted me:

binnyboy wrote:

So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

In fact we are so far past this that we have elaborated on it: look back to page FIVE to find:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
So I say that there is no god.

Yes you do.

Quote:
I say it as a fact.

Yes, you do disguise the fact that it is simply a guess.

Quote:
I am not sure it is true.

Yes, we are in agreement on that.

Quote:
But it is a fact.

Well it might be a fact...but you are in no position to assert that it is.

And that is what I am dealing with here...your assertion...not whether or not it is a fact. I don't know if it is a fact or not...just like you.

I carried on to show how this position was inconsistent with your later statement (page 6):

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are correct, BinI do not know that I do not have an invisible, incorporeal tail that fades in and out of corporeality every 90 years.

Like you, I would be wiling to guess that I do not.

in the following way:

binnyboy wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You are correct, BinI do not know that I do not have an invisible, incorporeal tail that fades in and out of corporeality every 90 years.

Like you, I would be wiling to guess that I do not.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do [not] know if there is a Godor if there are no gods.

I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either directionand because of that, I choose not to guess in either direction.

What makes you choose to guess you have no tail? What unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in that direction do you have?

to which you cleverly responded:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The unambiguous evidence I have upon which I would base my guess is... that the very first time I ever heard such an absurd idea being proposedwas right here in this threadby you, a guy I could see was getting desperate to back up his atheistic guesswork with nonsense proposed as intellectual wherewithal.

I evaluated the evidence of whether or not this absurd out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense was actually a revelation of some sort or just childish prattleand came up with a guess that I think is justified.

to which I very honestly and openly inquired:

binnyboy wrote:

So, let me see if I get this right. Is the following a correct description of what you think?

You don't have a tail is a guess you can make because I just then made it up; I do not claim it was revealed to me. If I did claim it was revealed to me (and you believed me)(or guessed that I was not intentionally lying, I guess I should say, since you don't BELIEVE anything), you might have to either come up with another reason to guess I am mistaken or, as you do with the gods case, refuse to draw a conclusion about whether I am mistaken (or agree with me which would not happen).
There is not a god is a guess that you cannot make because some people claim that there is a god and they seriously claim that they have had a revelation of this.

Is this an accurate conclusion? (I am trying very hard to say something in the spirit of your thoughts.)

My hopes have all but been dashed, however, as you refuse to carry on the discussion in favor of making a red herring of me making red herrings. Repetition doesn't indicate truth. We still are being held up by your refusal to address the question asked immediately above.

Furthermore, you asked:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you of the hilariously misinformed impression that agnostics suppose there are no factsor that there is something wrong with asserting a factor that there is something wrong with making reasonable guesses?

, to which I had the courtesy to respond:

binnyboy wrote:

Quote:
And I might reiterate that I do not come up with enough evidence upon which to make a guess to the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?"

Quote:
Are you of the hilariously misinformed impression that agnostics suppose there are no factsor that there is something wrong with asserting a factor that there is something wrong with making reasonable guesses?

Quote:
My contention, as I have mentioned several timesdeals with you asserting that you know which is the fact.

Your contention is that I am asserting a fact that I'm not sure of. My contention is that you constantly assert facts you could be wrong about. But you are right to call them facts. Just as I did:
binnyboy wrote:
So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.
I have used several examples in the past few posts to show how your "facts" could be just mistaken opinions. You're not sure (and if you are that's an equally big problem), and yet you call these BELIEFS facts. And you're right to do so. And so am I. Hope that answers your question. You fact asserter.

I furthered the discussion with the following concern:

binnyboy wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And I might reiterate that I do not come up with enough evidence upon which to make a guess to the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?"

fact (fakt) n. 1. Something known with certainty. 2. Something asserted as certain. 3. Something that has been objectively verified. 4. Something having real, demonstratable existence.
Definition 5 is the def. of fact in regard to law.
Source: Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Sounds to me that any time you assert a fact, you are making a guess (and asserting it as fact) to the question of "What is the nature of REALITY?" You fact asserter.

As far as I can see, you have not addressed the question above or the concern delineated here.
And to accuse me of filibustering or dropping red herrings in the face of this complete avoidance of the discussion at hand is unethical (by your standard of ethics... your BELIEFS, since I'm not too big on ethics) and childish.

So clearly, you have seen that I am ready and willing to bring this discussion forward, but you are just stalling. I even wasted a bunch of time LINING OUT THE WHOLE ARGUMENT so you could be sure to understand... I don't want to accuse you of copping out when you actually are having a hard time understanding what we each have said and where we are.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

I tend to believe that love/affinity is one of the many footprints of God. This is so ubiquitous and all powerful entity acting thru entire creation. And I (for myself) can even see plenty of evidence of that, perhaps even in you manifesting for now as the love of your atheist position. But we are not talking about generic proofs anymore.

And I tend to believe that love/affinity is one of the many tools evolution uses to selectively breed members of a species. And you're right. That's not a proof at all.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
2)...you have not laid a glove on any of the logical, thoughtful comments I have made.

That latter is mostly because you apparently do not have the guts to actually deal with the comments...and don't have the ethics or honesty to acknowledge that you don't.

Quote:
Frank,
You forget so easily that I am the only one (of the two of us) that is trying to move the discussion of our dispute forward.

No, Bin, you are attempting to sidetrack the discussion by evading the questions I have asked by raising a bunch of red herrings...even though I have attempted to respond to every question you have asked.

But that was already apparent from that little discussion we had earlier about the sentence you mangled.

In any case, I will repeat my original attempt to "move the discussion along."

Quote:
Let's take this right from the beginningso we can see just how anxious you are to stick with the issues.

Here is a questionwhich is a component of the question "What is the nature of REALITY?"

Is there a God (or gods)or are there no gods?

My answer to the question is clear, decisive, and to the point:

I do not know if there is a GodI also do not know if there are no godsand I do not see enough evidence that points in either direction that persuades me to guess in one direction or the other.

You, on the other hand, have offered: "I do not know"and"For certain there are no gods."

(And you presume to infer that I am fence straddling!)

So let's discuss this, Binand pleaseno red herringsat least for a little while.

When are you going to deal with this, Bin?

Is there a God (or gods)...or are there no gods?

I've already given my answer.

It is at the essence of everything being discussed here.

Or are you gonna do more red herring filibustering?

You already know my answer to this question. I have stated it several times, and you have quoted me. I have explained it and why it is more consistent than your BELIEF SET. You are the one being unethical here, presenting that I have not addressed your question. I repeat, I have, and you have quoted me:

binnyboy wrote:
So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact

Ahhhso you say you do not knowbut that you know.

And you consider that more consistent than what I say, which is: I do not know.

Binnyc'mon. Once again I must remind you that you are dealing with adults herenot kids.

Some of the guys down at the bowling alley may buy that "I do not know, but I know"and they may also buy into the idea that such gibberish is "more consistent" than "I do not know"but even they would need several beers before doing so.

So since those of us you are dealing with here are adults rather than kidsand since we are sober rather than juiced up

how about we deal with this for a bit.

'Splain to us, Binny, how you both "do not know"and "know" at the same time.

Then we will get to the other stuff.

0 Replies

I have paid you the respect of not characterizing what you say, as per your request.

Here you are characterizing my statement by saying I said I know there is no god. I never said that. Just find the quote of me saying that. You won't. I said I cannot be sure, but that it is a fact. I said it repeatedly. So your request cannot be granted because its basis is not in what I said. It is in a characterization that you just made up. And you still are avoiding the question and the concern which grew naturally from our discussion of this.

0 Replies

You know very well that the entire point behind this is that facts are very rarely pinned down. You assert the fact that I am dealing with adults here. But we could all be young teenagers for all you know, with you the only adult. You asserted something as a fact of which you were not sure.

You cannot be sure that there is more than one adult (you). But you asserted it as fact. What you claimed is analogous to,

It is a fact that you are dealing with adults. I am not sure that there is more than one adult. But it is a fact that you are dealing with adults.

You asserted this opinion as a fact, and you were right to do so, because it is a fact. So don't bust my chops for doing the same.

Now you answer my questions and concern.

And for YOU to call ME desperate is a laugh.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I have paid you the respect of not characterizing what you say, as per your request.

Here you are characterizing my statement by saying I said I know there is no god. I never said that. Just find the quote of me saying that. You won't. I said I cannot be sure, but that it is a fact. I said it repeatedly. So your request cannot be granted because its basis is not in what I said. It is in a characterization that you just made up. And you still are avoiding the question and the concern which grew naturally from our discussion of this.

You wrote:

Quote:

So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact

The only way you can logically assert it is "a fact"...is if you know it to be a fact.

If you do not know it to be a factstop asserting it to be a fact.and let's get on with this thing without this nonsense.

If you do not know it is a fact...then you do not know if there is a God or not.

In that case...we are in agreement on that point.

Let's decide whether we are in agreement or not.

0 Replies

The easiest thing to do here is to agree with Frank. It's true no one knows one way or the other, but by the same token, Frank will not argue what you believe to be true.

I believe that there is no God or Gods because that is how I have chosen to live my life. The global philosophy of Buddhism which I have chosen as a personal path agrees with me...

No one can prove there is or there is not a God, which I believe is Franks main point, but you may choose to believe in a God if that is the philosophical choice you make for yourself. I do not believe Frank would begrudge you that...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The easiest thing to do here is to agree with Frank. It's true no one knows one way or the other, but by the same token, Frank will not argue what you believe to be true.

I believe that there is no God or Gods because that is how I have chosen to live my life. The global philosophy of Buddhism which I have chosen as a personal path agrees with me...

No one can prove there is or there is not a God, which I believe is Franks main point, but you may choose to believe in a God if that is the philosophical choice you make for yourself. I do not believe Frank would begrudge you that...

Absolutely, McG.

I thank you for that commentary.

0 Replies

This seems to me to be the crux of the current argument.

binnyboy wrote:

binnyboy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I do [not] know if there is a Godor if there are no gods.

I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either directionand because of that, I choose not to guess in either direction.

What makes you choose to guess you have no tail? What unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in that direction do you have?

to which you cleverly responded:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The unambiguous evidence I have upon which I would base my guess is... that the very first time I ever heard such an absurd idea being proposedwas right here in this threadby you, a guy I could see was getting desperate to back up his atheistic guesswork with nonsense proposed as intellectual wherewithal.

I evaluated the evidence of whether or not this absurd out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense was actually a revelation of some sort or just childish prattleand came up with a guess that I think is justified.

to which I very honestly and openly inquired:

binnyboy wrote:
So, let me see if I get this right. Is the following a correct description of what you think?

You don't have a tail is a guess you can make because I just then made it up; I do not claim it was revealed to me. If I did claim it was revealed to me (and you believed me)(or guessed that I was not intentionally lying, I guess I should say, since you don't BELIEVE anything), you might have to either come up with another reason to guess I am mistaken or, as you do with the gods case, refuse to draw a conclusion about whether I am mistaken (or agree with me which would not happen).
There is not a god is a guess that you cannot make because some people claim that there is a god and they seriously claim that they have had a revelation of this.

Is this an accurate conclusion? (I am trying very hard to say something in the spirit of your thoughts.)

What I'm reading here is Frank asserting as a fact the non-existence of an article of "out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense" which is consistent with all observed evidence, namely an invisible incorporal tail attatched to himself. This assertion basically makes Frank an atailist.

So, what evidence does Frank provide to back up his atailism? None, he merely emphasised the lack of evidence supporting the tailist possition. He gave a reason to dismiss the testemony of he who presented the concept of an invisible tail as evidence.

So, why then is Frank not an atheist, asserting that god does not exist based upon the lack of evidence supporting the existance of gods, when he is an atailist, asserting the non existence of invisible tails based on the exact same evidence? It would appear that Frank considers the testemony of theists sufficiently convincing to justify agnosticism over atheism which would have been his possition if no evidence existed at all. Is this correct Frank?

0 Replies

In the mood for a fight? I am!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know