Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

T-Bone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,529

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    255

 Content Type 

Everything posted by T-Bone

  1. T-Bone
    T-Bone's response: and that's how you got suckered in. you should have analyzed all the way. By the way - you JUST CONTRADICTED what you've emphatically told me several times about how you were smarter than me because you analyzed everything before you bought into it...you are a walking-talking-posting-contradiction! T-Bone: wrong again Watson - Paul is addressing separate issue AFTER I Cor. 13 ! you need to pay attention to context and CONTINUITY ! ~ ~ ~ ~ here's just a suggestion if you want people to listen to you: quit acting like an incessant troll, ditch the duplicity, grow a real backbone, and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense and STAY on topic that's all for now
  2. T-Bone
    "Jesus is teaching them in Luke 11 HOW to receive holy spirit, and that part of the HOW is to not fear a worthless counterfeit manifestation, and to not fear a diabolical counterfeit manifestation of said gift, but to trust the loving wise father-in-the-word cult-leader wierwille who knows how to get the bull-Shonta just right ;" there I fixed it for you - I'm sure that's what you meant
  3. T-Bone
    A hint is to suggest or indicate something indirectly or covertly. The question was asked where does it state Jesus taught them specifically HOW. Yeah, wierwille uses that verse and other general verses on trust to HINT - or rather declare it applies to SIT. AND HE WAS WRONG! Similar to wierwille’s misuse of OT verses like God opening the windows of heaven to bless believers for tithing. I’m surprised that such big proponents of the Bible being mathematically exact and scientifically precise - like wierwille and YOU - will often go WAY OFF THE DEEP END of twisting Scripture to have it mean whatever YOU want it to mean.
  4. T-Bone
    I don’t know - you got me there…averse came to mind God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…also in Matt 4 and Luke 4 it speaks of Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness-and after that He reads the scroll of Isaiah- the Spirit of the Lord is upon me
  5. T-Bone
    Nothing in I Cor. 14 even suggests on/off or volume control. You’re making up bull-Shonta. Corinthians 14 is merely saying the believers won’t lose control of themselves like how they may have seen in pagan ecstasy rituals
  6. T-Bone
    in the book wierwille has written receive [lambano] ye the Holy Ghost [pneuma hagion] - in his explanation wierwille handles it as lower case - holy spirit what does that have to do with tongues? nothing! here's a visual aid that might help you differentiate between Big Ghost and little ghost
  7. T-Bone
    I’ve been reviewing both my RTHST and TNDC for several posts on this thread, and I can tell you right off the bat, wierwille beats around the bush in RTHST, he goes off on his stupid redefinitions of Greek words dechomai and lambano more than any details on HOW to speak in tongues. However, in the green book, The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 10 How to Speak in Tongues on page 117 wierwille says the following: Have you ever thought through the mechanics of speech? You with your own vocal organs have to do the speaking. The same mechanics that are involved in speaking English or any other known language are involved in speaking in tongues… …The only difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in English is that when I say, “I love the Lord Jesus Christ,” I have to think. When I speak in tongues I do not think the words I speak. God gives the words to my spirit, and I formulate them on my lips. I do not think the words, but they are there when I move my lips, my throat, my tongue. End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ My critique of wierwille’s above instructions involves my earlier post - here 97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible wierwille’s description of the mechanics and process of speaking in tongues is typical of his affinity to delineate the inexplicable. Although he's actually just describing the mechanics of speech - a student's imagination can assume God is supplying the words. He is describing very fine motor skills that any adult who speaks a language is very familiar with. Read the hyperlinks I have below. The trick that wierwille pulls on students is to get them to loosen up on inhibitions. Once a person gets over the fear of making a fool of themself – it’s easy to speak gibberish in front of others. Just use all the parts of speech you use when speaking in your language - except don't think about the sounds you are making...in high school I use to be good at mimicking Russian and Chinese - and my friends said it sounded real. One must still engage the brain to think of how to form the lips, tongue, how much to open or close the vocal folds, etc. – if the vocal folds close completely – air cannot pass through. This is called a glottal stop. Many languages utilize the glottal stop to produce consonant sounds. The most basic principle of speech production is that all sounds are produced by moving air. Air moves from the lungs to the mouth via the throat. The vocal folds (or vocal cords) vibrate as needed. (More on this below) And then the articulators (mouth, lips, tongue, cheek, palate, etc.) shape specific sounds. Why do we need to be taught how to speak in tongues? If it’s something of God – we shouldn’t have to be taught. It’s like wierwille’s bogus Great Principle – God who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit and blah dee blah blah…where is that stated in the Bible? Some related hyperlinks I have below: https://www.speechbuddy.com/blog/language-development/a-quick-primer-on-the-mechanics-of-speech/ https://prezi.com/p/ketszfrzz2ox/mechanic-and-process-of-speaking/ http://www.literary-articles.com/2012/03/mechanism-of-speech-process-and.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill Organs of Speech – Literature and Humanities
  8. T-Bone
    Mike may be thinking of page 43 of RTHST, wierwille quotes John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost I also remember - maybe in the class - reference to Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. and I think wierwille suggested it was the apostles breathing - but the text says the sound came from heaven. in the Bible, there is an allusion to Spirit being like the wind...I think whoever "taught" wierwille may have fixated on the "breathed" and "wind" and assumed that was part of the "ritual" - just a guess I do know for a fact wierwille was full of hot air
  9. T-Bone
    It appears Mike is not willing to cooperate (he’s being his evasive best ) and since I’ve been reviewing both my RTHST and TNDC for several of my posts on the thread Why PFAL sucks, I can tell you right off the bat, wierwille beats around the bush in RTHST, he goes off on his stupid redefinitions of Greek words dechomai and lambano more than any details on HOW to speak in tongues. However, in the green book, The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 10 How to Speak in Tongues on page 117 wierwille says in these excerpts: Have you ever thought through the mechanics of speech? You with your own vocal organs have to do the speaking. The same mechanics that are involved in speaking English or any other known language are involved in speaking in tongues… …The only difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in English is that when I say, “I love the Lord Jesus Christ,” I have to think. When I speak in tongues I do not think the words I speak. God gives the words to my spirit, and I formulate them on my lips. I do not think the words, but they are there when I move my lips, my throat, my tongue. End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ My critique of wierwille’s above instructions involves my recent post in the thread Why PFAL sucks - here 97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible wierwille’s description of the mechanics and process of speaking in tongues is typical of his affinity to delineate the inexplicable. Although he's actually just describing the mechanics of speech - a student's imagination can assume God is supplying the words. He is describing very fine motor skills that any adult who speaks a language is very familiar with. Read the hyperlinks I have below. The trick that wierwille pulls on students is to get them to loosen up on inhibitions. Once a person gets over the fear of making a fool of themself – it’s easy to speak gibberish in front of others. Just use all the parts of speech you use when speaking in your language - except don't think about the sounds you are making...in high school I use to be good at mimicking Russian and Chinese - and my friends said it sounded real. One must still engage the brain to think of how to form the lips, tongue, how much to open or close the vocal folds, etc. – if the vocal folds close completely – air cannot pass through. This is called a glottal stop. Many languages utilize the glottal stop to produce consonant sounds. The most basic principle of speech production is that all sounds are produced by moving air. Air moves from the lungs to the mouth via the throat. The vocal folds (or vocal cords) vibrate as needed. (More on this below.) And then the articulators (mouth, lips, tongue, cheek, palate, etc.) shape specific sounds. Why do we need to be taught how to speak in tongues? If it’s something of God – we shouldn’t have to be taught. It’s like wierwille’s bogus Great Principle – God who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit and blah dee blah blah…where is that stated in the Bible? Neither Mike nor wierwille know what they’re talking about! Read the hyperlinks I have below: https://www.speechbuddy.com/blog/language-development/a-quick-primer-on-the-mechanics-of-speech/ https://prezi.com/p/ketszfrzz2ox/mechanic-and-process-of-speaking/ http://www.literary-articles.com/2012/03/mechanism-of-speech-process-and.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill Organs of Speech – Literature and Humanities
  10. T-Bone
    M: Physics in the early 1800s seemed to deny free will, as it had been defined for centuries prior. But Neuroscience then was non-existent. Only Philosophy had ever talked about free will till then. Some philosophers gave up on free will and some tried to rescue it. This went on for 200 years, and then came along Neuroscience, where more hard scientists started thinking about the science of the brain. Still, Neuroscience has a long way to go in getting any real handle on how decisions are made in the brain, but at least it is getting lots of thought by hard core scientists. T: And besides your myopic musings - how decisions are made has been the subject of religions, philosophers, historians, political scientists, economists, statisticians, behavioral psychologists, anthropologists, military strategists, linguistic experts, managers, marketing strategists, etc. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: Like the philosophers, some have abandoned free will, and some have stood up for it. T: who cares? ~ ~ ~ ~ M: So far it looks like the old classical definition for free will be destroyed by Neuroscience as it develops. Unless a new angle on free will is developed, or a new WORKABLE definition is given, I feel scientists will more and more come out with announcements that they no longer hole any free will beliefs. T: who says – besides you? YOUR goofy definitions given do NOT appear to be workable. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: Most see that free will is not complete freedom, but don’t know what to do about it. A smaller number are actively pursuing ways to preserve some sort of free will, and another smaller (but growing) number feel that free will needs to be completely jettisoned from thought. T: you talk in such a vague manner…you’re NOT saying anything but fluff ~ ~ ~ ~ M: That is being hotly debated by scientists and philosophers and political activists. Many are outraged that justice systems are not keeping up with advances in science and are fundamentally unfair. Both sides have strong arguments. My bet is that God did give us humans, even natural man, the ability (or freedom) to both learn and make better decisions. In my theory, minFW is really just complicated learning. T: YOUR theory presented here is an overcomplicated convoluted mess. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: The whole issue of credit and blame comes up in free will debates, especially when political activists are participating. T: responsibility in any context is important ~ ~ ~ ~ M: The big tug of war here is between determinism and the OLD DEFINITION of free will. Determinism is winning in the minds of scientists. T: where’s the data to support your statement?
  11. T-Bone
    M: This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught. T: “swerved” (past tense) change or cause to change direction abruptly – yes – when I got honest with myself to admit I faked it – I immediately quit doing it – I realized the one who taught me was wrong! wierwille - who knew ZILCH about The Holy Spirit – and invented a sideshow of holy spirit ( oh rather he regurgitated Bullinger’s erroneous teaching on the Giver and the gifts )– wierwille “taught” about this stuff anyway…One of his many traits you seem to have picked up. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: Here is a good example of things taught in the class that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed. T: “were never fully absorbed” – but YOU did! That’s part of YOUR problem. You should have analyzed rather than absorbed. I’m surprised you admit to that by recommending absorbing info. Analyzing is how real scientists think and work. You seem to have a tremendous absorption rate – which makes the task of brainwashing much easier for the cult-leader…Sadly your posts always indicate your cognitive skills are abysmal. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are: (1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and T: all claims of benefits are bogus! Matter of fact, one could make a strong case of the deleterious effects of mouthing gibberish detracts from mindful prayer (prayer using one's understanding ), establishes a behavioral “rut” that accomplishes nothing, gives one a false sense of confidence and fosters an attitude of prideful spiritual superiority. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: (2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and T: To paraphrase Jesus’s words about hypocrites in Matthew 15:8 - These hypocrites think they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. while wierwille was sexually molesting women he could have done that fake-speaking-in-tongues-LoShonta-baloney to supposedly assure himself he was still going to heaven. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: (3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and T: If a student followed wierwille’s instructions to the letter – then they can be rest assured they will be able to fake speaking in tongues…the acid test for proving someone is genuinely speaking in tongues as mentioned in the book of Acts, would be to record them and have language experts analyze it. The flimsy excuse I hear is often “well, I speak in an unknown tongue…or …it’s the tongue of angels…that’s a bunch of bull-Shonta – if they are an intelligent sentient being – whether mortal or heavenly – language is the principal method of communication. angel’s language would still have a standardized system of rules and symbols – which given enough time some linguistic expert could decode. ~ ~ ~ ~ M: (4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech). T: God is not responsible for gibberish and fake tongues; take the wierwille-colored glasses off then read I Corinthians 14 noting the distinction of tongues in the singular and plural in I Cor. 14 it is obvious Paul was instructing the church on the difference between genuine speaking in tongues and what some pagan groups have been observed to practice. I also touched on this in a few notable posts: here , here , and here M: Those are ALL teachable and learnable. T: yes – as in learned behaviorism ~ ~ ~ ~ M: The class taught us those things, T: yes – I already said the class taught us how to fake speaking in tongues ~ ~ ~ ~ M: and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost. T: ah – there it is – the grand erroneous assumption! Did wierwille find an old Betamax video tape of Jesus teaching his apostles exactly what wierwille teaches? I trow not….wow wee wow I just spoke in King James…It’s a sign! You are such a contradictory goofball – you said > here - that one can't make claims without backing it up with the authority of God's Word – YOU just did that my neurotic-pseudoscientific friend
  12. T-Bone
    You have quite an imagination to claim all this. I’m curious who your intended audience is that are already familiar with your spiel...Have you been preaching to some folks tripping their a$$es off? and frankly you have no success of people buying your bull-Shonta here - so I don’t believe any legitimate scientist or sensible person would buy your bull-Shonta if they met you in person!!!! You have zilch knowledge, experience, wisdom, authority, expertise to make any meaningful statements about neuroscience. Go back to your tripping “friends”...They probably like the entertaining bull-Shonta Everything you posted so far obfuscates what little sense it might make Back up and punt! And by that, I mean quit acting like an incessant troll, ditch the duplicity, grow a real backbone, and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense and STAY on topic
  13. T-Bone
    = = = = = 1. You have no credibility here – so I see no reason to believe what you say regarding anything! 2. There’s lots of ways to define salvation from Bible texts. Comparing various ways to interpret the Bible to a developing science is comparing metaphysical apples to actual oranges. As I said in response to your doing a # 2 on your own stupid statement in # 1- your lack of credibility limits the response to your bull-shonta. Your chapters were printed with Kool-Aid for ink cartridges.
  14. T-Bone
    don't worry about that now - it's got tracks all over the place! and some places where there aren't any tracks...go figure
  15. T-Bone
    And a whole lotta-bull-Shonta to you too, Mike. For a guy who acts like a troll and rattles off a bunch of nonsense you sure do talk a lot. Does science disprove free will? While there are many reasons to believe that a person’s will is not completely free of influence, there is not a scientific consensus against free will. Some use the term “free will” in a looser sense to reflect that conscious decisions play a role in the outcomes of a person’s life—even if those are shaped by innate dispositions or randomness. (Critics of the concept of free will might simply call this kind of decision-making “will,” or volition.) Even when unconscious processes help determine a person’s conscious behavior, some argue, such processes can still be thought of as part of an individual’s will. … …Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior? One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question… From: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/free-will ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2] Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes. Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
  16. T-Bone
    oh yes - it's another way of describing indoctrination...brainwashing ! yikes !
  17. T-Bone
    Great question! something I'm going to get into later on the Why PFAL sucks thread - in The New Dynamic Church chapter 9 I've been reviewing there - wierwille actually teaches followers HOW TO FAKE speaking in tongues. Dat's riiiight...I didn't write the book.
  18. T-Bone
    your silly “book carrier” misinterpretation on the NT canon thread is based on your childish impression of literary structure and it's probably best for you not to keep drawing attention to your trolling antics
  19. T-Bone
    You do realize wierwille screwed up definitions on a regular basis - your re-defining antics on this thread tells me that's how it helped you follow in his ways
  20. T-Bone
    Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life? It was attention getting for me, … once. It showed a disconnect between tradition and what is written, FOR A SUPER SIMPLE CASE. It got me prepared for many more traditions that needed challenging, because of what was written. Nice to see the puzzle fit, going from contradictory Bible to consistent Bible. You got suckered in by wierwille’s repeating of Bullinger’s error. 4 crucified is NOT even remotely suggested in what’s WRITTEN! There is no goofy misshapen puzzle that Bullinger/ wierwille cut edges off the pieces so they would “fit” . In my opinion the crucifixion scene is not contradictory if there are 4 different narratives of the same event . Even dumb-a$$ wierwille admits that when he taught on why 4 gospels.
  21. T-Bone
    Picking back up in chapter 9, Speaker in Tongues, in the green book titled The New Dynamic Church, on page 103 : No one can go any further than he himself has been taught, and a teacher can teach no more than he knows. If you want to help someone else, first you yourself must be helped; otherwise, the blind lead the blind and they both stumble around. One of the darkest spots of understanding in the Bible concerns the Holy Spirit, both the Giver and the gift of holy spirit. Let us no longer be blind. Let us study God’s Word to understand His will. First of all let us clarify that God is Holy Spirit. When a person is born again, God gives to His new son a gift. And since God is Holy Spirit, He can only give what He is – holy spirit. To help distinguish between God the Giver and His gift, The Giver, Holy Spirit, is always capitalized while His gift, holy spirit, is not. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ This brings me to my next point of why PFAL sucks… 97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible If there’s one thing that comes with the territory of being a harmful and controlling cult-leader it’s having an affinity for sounding authoritative. Tangents that touch on the inherent vagueness of many topics like God, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, demonology were areas in which wierwille would have a field day. I left TWI in ’86 and immediately dived deep into a bunch of biblical topics that I suspected wierwille had mishandled. One that I am still working on is The Holy Spirit. I may share more on this another time and place as I figure out what I’m doing - - but point # 97 touches a sensitive nerve with me – so at this point I’d just like to tentatively put forth a theory – When the Bible speaks of The Holy Spirit, The Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church in general and in believers individually it is always in regards to The Holy Spirit – God. I don't see any biblical reasons to refer to the spirit being like a car battery powering the manifestations. Nor any of the other dubious articulating that wierwille did to draw a distinction from something in the Bible that is rather nebulous - Holy Spirit. Also keep in mind the culture and worldview of these ancient writers - something I touched on in another thread in doctrinal - here . I’m not really looking to get into a discussion over the Trinity about this right now – but if anyone wants to bring up pet verses that wierwille used to suggest it was talking about an attribute, quality or power that resides in us or has been given to us that is separate from the Holy Spirit – God, I’m okay with discussing that since I have reviewed a lot of wierwille’s pet verses from a different perspective. I’m leaving a few hyperlinks below – the books I’ve listed are the ones I own and have been reviewing those for a while – if you happen to have any of them you can refer to the pages, I give so you know what I’ve been looking at. The hyperlinks below my books are to various websites that get into this…FYI – what I’ve noticed I my search is that most sites are Trinitarian. I’ve included one link from Unitarians – and the article has a reference to Bullinger’s work on the Giver and the Gift…anyway…have fun – I’d appreciate any feedback or input appropriate to point # 97… ladies and gentlemen here be dah hyperlinks: My books: See https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Theology-Millard-J-Erickson/dp/0801034337 pages 872ff the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian and pages 877ff the miraculous gifts today see https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700 pages 634ff The work of the Holy Spirit See https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Christian-Belief/dp/1596382171 Pages 923ff The Holy Spirit See https://www.amazon.com/God-Love-Biblical-Systematic-Theology/dp/1433522691 Pages 213ff on Holy Spirit and pages 603ff the Holy Spirit and God’s people ~ ~ ~ ~ https://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-does-a-christian-receive-the-holy-spirit/ https://servantsofgrace.org/the-holy-spirit-and-the-christian/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit https://www.cru.org/us/en/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/core-christian-beliefs/theological-perspective-on-the-holy-spirit.html https://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-does-a-christian-receive-the-holy-spirit/ https://servantsofgrace.org/the-holy-spirit-and-the-christian/ https://slife.org/holy-spirit-in-christian-denominational-variations/ https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/holy-spirit/the-giver-and-the-gift Biblical Unitarian: The Giver and The Gift – with reference to Bullinger’s work ** ** ** ** pssst – that’s all folks
  22. T-Bone
    96. PFAL relies on faulty logic and fantastic claims To illustrate if that was used on this thread it would look like this: The reason PFAL sucks is because PFAL sucks Or God told me to tell you that PFAL sucks Or God told me to tell you that PFAL sucks. I said to Him, if that’s really true can you make it rain in Columbia…and it’s five o’clock somewhere.
  23. T-Bone
    95. wierwille uses repetition, plagiarized material, and lots of bull-Shonta to lengthen the class To illustrate if it were to be used on this thread: Four hours of content held forth over 36 hours ...Thus PFAL suckage # 19 becomes "bored-again" as PFAL suckage # 95. What’s old is new again…or there’s nothing new under wierwille’s “ministry”zzzZZZ But if I didn’t quote Nathan_Jr , I could also use the claim-without-proof-trick: I wish you could see # 95 in the original. Another option – refer to the ancient Piece-of-Shonta text: For this purpose, was I spared an original thought. Last but not least option or two : nicely ask “the teacher” to repeat the material – but ask in tongues: veuillez répéter or tongues with interpretation: veuillez répéter … and know my children, please repeat the same gibberish I say or French Interlinear Text: *veuillez répéter [please] repeat *veuillez not in the original newsletters to way corps
  24. T-Bone
    Okay - that's one order of mark and avoid and ...do you want fried cognitive skills with that?
  25. T-Bone
    Welcome to PFAL, can I take your order please
×
×
  • Create New...