Right. This is NOT finished science; it's the frontier. No one has this stuff nailed down.
Sounds like you think you do.
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
Carroll says so towards the end. He admits he doesn't know for sure.
Which would employ freedom of will. Determinism would make him sure of what happen next. Wound clock running down, remember?
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
Here is his last sentence. I totally agree with it (with my bold fonts):
"What we have to say is, 'Given the choices I make, what is the future that I'm going to help bring about?' So like it or not, the world that we really know and live in is one where our choices matter. That's where meaning comes from, from recognizing that in the real world of the knowledge that we have and our computational boundedness, we have some responsibility for bringing about what is going to happen next."
You see it that way. I see it as, because we have freedom of will there is no telling what coming, but we must take the next step.
If he knew what was coming next, as in determinism, he would stated what's coming next.
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
Old fashioned Libertarian FW would have those bold fonted words different. The "help" would be deleted, and the "some" would be chanted to "total
In your opinion. See above.
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
So, Carroll is departing from classical free will here, like I do.
*/*/*/*/*
Usually, in this big debate, Compatibilism is defined as finding ways Libertarian FW and determinism can be reconciled.
I saw the video, you don't have to tell me the astonishingly obvious, the merely obvious will do.
3 minutes ago, Mike said:
I am an unconventional Compatibilist in that I am working on a way to have minFW and determinism reconciled
Yah, that why you ignore everything outside your theory or try to bend everything to mean your theory, right?
Nate, do you want me to pass this one to you or should I spike it over the net?
I'm really not interested in playing this game. It's an endeavor without fruit. Like sitting through PFLAP over and over again. Like asserting the opinionated claim of four crucified.
(I will be starting a new topic soon that will put to rest, finally, the stupid error of four crucified. We will take Bullinger's errors apart line by line.)
It sounds like you are STILL aghast. Did you see the subtitle in Dennett's "Elbow Room" yet?
His talks about all sorts of ways FW can be defined, and says we should shop around to see which one works best.
Another definition for freedom of will:
Tick: And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.
I just wanna know what happened to that poor little sail boat that was determinialistically acted upon by a series of events pre determined by the water under the water but that little sail boat turned out to have miniFW with the mitochlorians and the bull shonta was even stronger with this one....were all kinda like that little sail boat....except we CAN DECIDE TO GET OUT THE water because there is water at the bottom of the ocean. Lo Shonta!
I just wanna know what happened to that poor little sail boat that was determinialistically acted upon by a series of events pre determined by the water under the water but that little sail boat turned out to have miniFW with the mitochlorians and the bull shonta was even stronger with this one....were all kinda like that little sail boat....except we CAN DECIDE TO GET OUT THE water because there is water at the bottom of the ocean. Lo Shonta!
I just wanna know what happened to that poor little sail boat that was determinialistically acted upon by a series of events pre determined by the water under the water but that little sail boat turned out to have miniFW with the mitochlorians and the bull shonta was even stronger with this one....were all kinda like that little sail boat....except we CAN DECIDE TO GET OUT THE water because there is water at the bottom of the ocean. Lo Shonta!
Remember the greatest cargoes of Kool-Aid are from pirated material on TVs
I HAVE the Book and Have read it. what page/pages did he phrase it the way YOU said it?
I already quoted from that book in my Chapter 4.
It is doubtful he said it the same ways as I did, but the idea is there.
I like to paraphrase, summarize, or use hyperbole at times.
The book is notorious for being dense and hard to understand. Even other superstars in the field complain that Dennett's "Elbow Room" is either overly difficult or nonsense. After decades of complaints he finally re-did it in a 2nd edition, but it still is difficult.
He seems to spend a lot of time on other people's ideas and positions, never come out and say what HIS position is. MAYBE he does say it, but it's to much in academic technical lingo, and I miss it. He doesn't condemn Libertarian Free will anywhere, I don't think. Plus he never quite says he believes in determinism. This could be because the book's origins are relatively ancient.
This denseness is completely fixed in his videos, which are totally modern.
Dennett believes in determinism.
Dennett does NOT believe in Libertarian Free Will.
Dennett believes in some other kind of "free will worth wanting" as his famous phrase goes.
But in both his books and his videos he never comes up with a mechanism that would demonstrate his ideas. I kept looking for it for years, and never found it, so I invented one myself, based on his hints.
In my chapter 4 I go into 10 tips for understanding Dennett's position on free will. I've been trying to crack the Dennett code since the mid 1990s. I met him briefly then, and have corresponded with him a little since then.
Many thinkers complain about Dennett changing the definition of free will, just like you folks don't like me doing it. I got the idea from Dennett.
I already quoted from that book in my Chapter 4.
It is doubtful he said it the same ways as I did, but the idea is there.
I like to paraphrase, summarize, or use hyperbole at times.
The book is notorious for being dense and hard to understand. Even other superstars in the field complain that Dennett's "Elbow Room" is either overly difficult or nonsense. After decades of complaints he finally re-did it in a 2nd edition, but it still is difficult.
He seems to spend a lot of time on other people's ideas and positions, never come out and say what HIS position is. MAYBE he does say it, but it's to much in academic technical lingo, and I miss it. He doesn't condemn Libertarian Free will anywhere, I don't think. Plus he never quite says he believes in determinism. This could be because the book's origins are relatively ancient.
This denseness is completely fixed in his videos, which are totally modern.
Dennett believes in determinism.
Dennett does NOT believe in Libertarian Free Will.
Dennett believes in some other kind of "free will worth wanting" as his famous phrase goes.
But in both his books and his videos he never comes up with a mechanism that would demonstrate his ideas. I kept looking for it for years, and never found it, so I invented one myself, based on his hints.
I read both of his books looking for his alternate free will to Libertarian FW, because he DO
In my chapter 4 I go into 10 tips for understanding Dennett's position on free will. I've been trying to crack the Dennett code since the mid 1990s. I met him briefly then, and have corresponded with him a little since then.
Reminds me of wierwille’s playbook: plagiarize other writers, twist a few things around to cover tracks back to original authors - and through the manifestations of incompetency and faith in bull-Shonta it’s labeled new and improved
Reminds me of wierwille’s playbook: plagiarize other writers, twist a few things around to cover tracks back to original authors - and through the manifestations of incompetency and faith in bull-Shonta it’s labeled new and improved
I fully admit all this in my chapter 4. It sounds like you haven't read it.
One of the reasons I brought my minFW hypothesis here for review was that for years I was often presenting it to people who were more scientifically oriented and very atheistic, and even communistic. It was just the mix of the people that showed up for those particular Facebook discussion groups.
But here people are a less scientifically oriented, and more leaning towards believing in God. As a result I get a different slant of views on my text.
I couldn’t discuss any of the spirit issues in Facebook groups because it would be too distracting for them. I wouldn’t be able to discuss the scientific stuff if I brought up anything spiritual whatsoever. I dared to do it here and there but very sparingly.
Now here we’ve discussed (in between all of the hooting and hollering) a couple of the spiritual parts of my ideas. I explained a few times why I limited this early draft of my book the most simple situation, which is the body and soul man, with no spirit.
But there’s one angle to this whole spiritual perspective that has eluded discussion here. It eluded me too in my thinking, because of the people I was hanging out with in discussing this. But just today I thought new angle I had not thought through.
None of us have brought up the idea of Jesus Christ spending his first 30 years as a body and soul man, not having spirit.
According to the Bible, and my minFW hypothesis, Jesus had free will before he got spirit.
How DID Jesus Christ grow his free will? …if that’s how it works. Or how did he get it installed? …if that’s how it works.
One of the fundamental elements of my minFW hypothesis involves trial and error.
Did Jesus have to go through trial and error for developing minFW?
I’ve often wondered if the very young child Jesus ever had to be scolded or corrected or punished. Did he get the flu?
I’ve often thought about him first realizing who he was and what kind of a job he had to do. We’ve been encouraged to do that kind of thinking often. But I never thought through: how did he develop freewill as a very young child growing into the “age of reason” traditionally regarded as fully formed by seven years old, when we usually see children developing their own decision making process.
Have any of you parents ever wondered how Jesus developed obedience and will power as a child, as you watched your children grow?
I’ve often wondered if Jesus had to be punished as a child but I never heard anybody talk about it.
This might be an area where my theory could be falsifiable, because it is centered on trial and error learning.
Did Jesus have to use trial and error in his learning as a young child?
Oh - so you admit you plagiarized, did a mishmash rewrite and covered your incompetency with bull-Shonta !
Not quite.
I admitted that I TRIED MY BEST to steal it, but it is so hard to understand Dennett that I am not sure if I succeeded.
Here... I'll just paste the text here
Minimalistic Free Will
Chapter 4 - Origins of minFW
##########################
I did my very best to steal as many of Daniel Dennett’s ideas as I possibly could, in formulating this theory on minFW. This was NOT an easy heist, because Dennett, who is world renown for clear explanations, is unusually difficult to understand when it comes to the topic of free will.I have found others with this same complaint. This is an odd and complex story; hence it needs its own chapter.
But seriously, I really do want to plead guilty to Attempted Plagiarism of Dennett’s ideas on “free will.”It would actually be a happy day for me, to see page numbers and proof that I succeeded in this attempted piggy-back, in building my theory.
What I wrote earlier, in previous chapters about minFW was RICHLY lifted from Daniel Dennett, to the best of my knowledge.I mixed in plenty of tiny pieces from other scientists as well, but not nearly enough to be charged with plagiarism.If I understand him right, then what I wrote I got largely from Dennett, as I’ll explain.
I’m pretty sure I succeeded in this theft. I say “pretty” sure because this is an ongoing work. I’m still studying his two books on this, “Elbow Room” and “Freedom Evolves.”
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occured: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
There are various reasons that his FW texts are a bit indecipherable, and I have been documenting their workarounds as I discover them. I want to help, because I’ve slowly seen many points of light in his work.
Let me tell you more about this long story with Dennett.
I fully admit all this in my chapter 4. It sounds like you haven't read it.
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
At best you won't decode him. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means?
And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him.
People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text.
Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point.
Oh, and also, experience teaches me, writers trying to snow you try to add in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the point, this makes there work far longer than it should be. As a general rule: the more padding, the longer the post; the longer the post and the further off point, the greater the snow job. There are exceptions.
Reminds me of wierwille’s playbook: plagiarize other writers, twist a few things around to cover tracks back to original authors - and through the manifestations of incompetency and faith in bull-Shonta it’s labeled new and improved
7 hours ago, Mike said:
I fully admit all this in my chapter 4. It sounds like you haven't read it.
7 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Oh - so you admit you plagiarized, did a mishmash rewrite and covered your incompetency with bull-Shonta !
Not only is he admitting that he plagaiarized, did a mishmash rewrite and covered his imcompetency with bull-Shonta he also just admitted that wierwille did the same thing.
What he have here is a failure to communicate...oh wait...right church wrong pew...
What we actually have here, all bull-Shonta aside, is a classic case of parapraxis, aka Freudian Slip and with mike it likely also couples with his cognitive dissonance. There are several types of Freuduan slips but in this case we are seeing a classic case of Avoidance. Mike has to intentionally supresss the truth he knows regarding his idol (wierwille) because he simply doesn't want to deal with truth. Truth about wierwille - con-man, plaigairist, drunk, serial philanderer (im being nice) false prophet. He has to intentionally bury all of this information and rationalize it away, even admitting that it's true with his comparisions with wierwille to Biblical figures. Then you have all the bull-shonta from pflap that he holds near and dear that completely distorts his view on reality and so you see the cognitive dissonance. Now maybe the real person behind mikes profile has none of these issues and it's only the fake online troll persona that does. Who really knows.
With that said, mike expects us to take him seriously on anything? Ok...Im off to my little sail boat. That sailboat lives in it's own little universe...where there is water under the water...or at least the Vermicelli Effect keeps the water at the bottom of the pot nice and hot while I cook my noodles for some stir fry...remember there is water at the bottom of the ocean...says prophet Byrne.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
So_crates
Sounds like you think you do.
Which would employ freedom of will. Determinism would make him sure of what happen next. Wound clock running down, remember?
You see it that way. I see it as, because we have freedom of will there is no telling what coming, but we must take the next step.
If he knew what was coming next, as in determinism, he would stated what's coming next.
In your opinion. See above.
I saw the video, you don't have to tell me the astonishingly obvious, the merely obvious will do.
Yah, that why you ignore everything outside your theory or try to bend everything to mean your theory, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm not. There you go with the accusations, again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Nate, do you want me to pass this one to you or should I spike it over the net?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What is the page number that statement is on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm really not interested in playing this game. It's an endeavor without fruit. Like sitting through PFLAP over and over again. Like asserting the opinionated claim of four crucified.
(I will be starting a new topic soon that will put to rest, finally, the stupid error of four crucified. We will take Bullinger's errors apart line by line.)
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It is in the subtitle of the book.
It pops up in LOTS of places.
If you want to read it MAKE SURE you get the 2nd edition. The first was pretty bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Another definition for freedom of will:
Tick:
And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I HAVE the Book and Have read it.
what page/pages did he phrase it the way YOU said it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sounds like a "class" I know.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hi Shonta!
I just wanna know what happened to that poor little sail boat that was determinialistically acted upon by a series of events pre determined by the water under the water but that little sail boat turned out to have miniFW with the mitochlorians and the bull shonta was even stronger with this one....were all kinda like that little sail boat....except we CAN DECIDE TO GET OUT THE water because there is water at the bottom of the ocean. Lo Shonta!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mogadishu!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Remember the greatest cargoes of Kool-Aid are from pirated material on TVs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I already quoted from that book in my Chapter 4.
It is doubtful he said it the same ways as I did, but the idea is there.
I like to paraphrase, summarize, or use hyperbole at times.
The book is notorious for being dense and hard to understand. Even other superstars in the field complain that Dennett's "Elbow Room" is either overly difficult or nonsense. After decades of complaints he finally re-did it in a 2nd edition, but it still is difficult.
He seems to spend a lot of time on other people's ideas and positions, never come out and say what HIS position is. MAYBE he does say it, but it's to much in academic technical lingo, and I miss it. He doesn't condemn Libertarian Free will anywhere, I don't think. Plus he never quite says he believes in determinism. This could be because the book's origins are relatively ancient.
This denseness is completely fixed in his videos, which are totally modern.
Dennett believes in determinism.
Dennett does NOT believe in Libertarian Free Will.
Dennett believes in some other kind of "free will worth wanting" as his famous phrase goes.
But in both his books and his videos he never comes up with a mechanism that would demonstrate his ideas. I kept looking for it for years, and never found it, so I invented one myself, based on his hints.
In my chapter 4 I go into 10 tips for understanding Dennett's position on free will. I've been trying to crack the Dennett code since the mid 1990s. I met him briefly then, and have corresponded with him a little since then.
Many thinkers complain about Dennett changing the definition of free will, just like you folks don't like me doing it. I got the idea from Dennett.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Reminds me of wierwille’s playbook: plagiarize other writers, twist a few things around to cover tracks back to original authors - and through the manifestations of incompetency and faith in bull-Shonta it’s labeled new and improved
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I fully admit all this in my chapter 4. It sounds like you haven't read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
One of the reasons I brought my minFW hypothesis here for review was that for years I was often presenting it to people who were more scientifically oriented and very atheistic, and even communistic. It was just the mix of the people that showed up for those particular Facebook discussion groups.
But here people are a less scientifically oriented, and more leaning towards believing in God. As a result I get a different slant of views on my text.
I couldn’t discuss any of the spirit issues in Facebook groups because it would be too distracting for them. I wouldn’t be able to discuss the scientific stuff if I brought up anything spiritual whatsoever. I dared to do it here and there but very sparingly.
Now here we’ve discussed (in between all of the hooting and hollering) a couple of the spiritual parts of my ideas. I explained a few times why I limited this early draft of my book the most simple situation, which is the body and soul man, with no spirit.
But there’s one angle to this whole spiritual perspective that has eluded discussion here. It eluded me too in my thinking, because of the people I was hanging out with in discussing this. But just today I thought new angle I had not thought through.
None of us have brought up the idea of Jesus Christ spending his first 30 years as a body and soul man, not having spirit.
According to the Bible, and my minFW hypothesis, Jesus had free will before he got spirit.
How DID Jesus Christ grow his free will? …if that’s how it works. Or how did he get it installed? …if that’s how it works.
One of the fundamental elements of my minFW hypothesis involves trial and error.
Did Jesus have to go through trial and error for developing minFW?
I’ve often wondered if the very young child Jesus ever had to be scolded or corrected or punished. Did he get the flu?
I’ve often thought about him first realizing who he was and what kind of a job he had to do. We’ve been encouraged to do that kind of thinking often. But I never thought through: how did he develop freewill as a very young child growing into the “age of reason” traditionally regarded as fully formed by seven years old, when we usually see children developing their own decision making process.
Have any of you parents ever wondered how Jesus developed obedience and will power as a child, as you watched your children grow?
I’ve often wondered if Jesus had to be punished as a child but I never heard anybody talk about it.
This might be an area where my theory could be falsifiable, because it is centered on trial and error learning.
Did Jesus have to use trial and error in his learning as a young child?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh - so you admit you plagiarized, did a mishmash rewrite and covered your incompetency with bull-Shonta !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not quite.
I admitted that I TRIED MY BEST to steal it, but it is so hard to understand Dennett that I am not sure if I succeeded.
Here... I'll just paste the text here
Minimalistic Free Will
Chapter 4 - Origins of minFW
##########################
I did my very best to steal as many of Daniel Dennett’s ideas as I possibly could, in formulating this theory on minFW. This was NOT an easy heist, because Dennett, who is world renown for clear explanations, is unusually difficult to understand when it comes to the topic of free will. I have found others with this same complaint. This is an odd and complex story; hence it needs its own chapter.
But seriously, I really do want to plead guilty to Attempted Plagiarism of Dennett’s ideas on “free will.” It would actually be a happy day for me, to see page numbers and proof that I succeeded in this attempted piggy-back, in building my theory.
What I wrote earlier, in previous chapters about minFW was RICHLY lifted from Daniel Dennett, to the best of my knowledge. I mixed in plenty of tiny pieces from other scientists as well, but not nearly enough to be charged with plagiarism. If I understand him right, then what I wrote I got largely from Dennett, as I’ll explain.
I’m pretty sure I succeeded in this theft. I say “pretty” sure because this is an ongoing work. I’m still studying his two books on this, “Elbow Room” and “Freedom Evolves.”
Dennett needs to be decoded, IMO, because for decades NO ONE I know has been able to explain in any detail (to me) how his theory on free will works. Just the opposite has often occured: many good thinkers have told me they are baffled by his free will theories.
There are various reasons that his FW texts are a bit indecipherable, and I have been documenting their workarounds as I discover them. I want to help, because I’ve slowly seen many points of light in his work.
Let me tell you more about this long story with Dennett.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No offense Mike, but I like to “read it in the original”. I can follow along with Dennett just fine…Your stuff is a mess!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Your tome brings about a few interesting question:
If the determinism of the universe stated man did not receive spirit (at least for a time) what changed that allowed Jesus Christ to get spirit?
If Jesus Christ was a natural man, and as you've stated previously, Natural man is like a beast, the how did he get the free will to do what he had to do to get spirit? If Christ got spirit through water baptism, why don't we?
If God can only communicate with what he is, spirit, how did He impregnate Mary?
Angels communicated with Joseph telling him not to worry about Mary, does this mean angels are more powerful than God, as they didn't need the spirit-spirit connection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
At best you won't decode him. You'll offer an opinion on what you think he's saying. Remember all those term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means?
And, in all probability, he probably writes that way because he's trying to give himself wiggle room if somebody challenges him.
People also often write word salad style so people will read into the text what they want to read into the text.
Writers with nothing to hide, hide nothing. They write clearly and to the point.
Oh, and also, experience teaches me, writers trying to snow you try to add in extraneous details that have nothing to do with the point, this makes there work far longer than it should be. As a general rule: the more padding, the longer the post; the longer the post and the further off point, the greater the snow job. There are exceptions.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not only is he admitting that he plagaiarized, did a mishmash rewrite and covered his imcompetency with bull-Shonta he also just admitted that wierwille did the same thing.
What he have here is a failure to communicate...oh wait...right church wrong pew...
What we actually have here, all bull-Shonta aside, is a classic case of parapraxis, aka Freudian Slip and with mike it likely also couples with his cognitive dissonance. There are several types of Freuduan slips but in this case we are seeing a classic case of Avoidance. Mike has to intentionally supresss the truth he knows regarding his idol (wierwille) because he simply doesn't want to deal with truth. Truth about wierwille - con-man, plaigairist, drunk, serial philanderer (im being nice) false prophet. He has to intentionally bury all of this information and rationalize it away, even admitting that it's true with his comparisions with wierwille to Biblical figures. Then you have all the bull-shonta from pflap that he holds near and dear that completely distorts his view on reality and so you see the cognitive dissonance. Now maybe the real person behind mikes profile has none of these issues and it's only the fake online troll persona that does. Who really knows.
With that said, mike expects us to take him seriously on anything? Ok...Im off to my little sail boat. That sailboat lives in it's own little universe...where there is water under the water...or at least the Vermicelli Effect keeps the water at the bottom of the pot nice and hot while I cook my noodles for some stir fry...remember there is water at the bottom of the ocean...says prophet Byrne.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.