And once again, a lot of those TVTs came from the mouth of Saint Vic himself.
Yes, that could happen. I dont see that happening in the class or collaterals, though. He was not Jesus Christ; he had sin in his life like you and me.
Yes, that could happen. I dont see that happening in the class or collaterals, though. He was not Jesus Christ; he had sin in his life like you and me.
No, not like me. I never broke the law, at least seriously, basically parking violations. So my level of sin was nowhere near his.
But it did happen in the class and collaterals, as Waysider has been pointing out to you. As I've been pointing out to you.
Ever feminist in your read only audience should be giving you a talking to. Your blaming the women for what happened to them. Oh,you claim, the woman's level of temptation was too high. (Blame the victim. It wasn't his fault. It was them. They were too tempting.)
How do we know they were actually SIT? How do we know they weren't fluent in the languages they spoke?
For something presented a canon, the whole incident is poorly documented.
1. I already raised that point, but appreciate the refresher.
2. My comment, that I would drop the digression, was regarding the topic of the reliability of the gospel of John, not Ralph D's dubious SIT confirmation story.
3. I think, assuming Ralph D told the truth, that his father was clearly the least inquisitive linguist in the history of linguistics. I would be embarrassed to relay a story that so betrayed my own father's professiomal incompetence.
Still, there are clues in the account that establish its kinship with solid bovine waste produçt.
Like how the speaker produced Portuguese with a slight Castillian accent.
People don't speak in accents that are foreign to their native tongue. If he spoke with a Castillian accent it's because he was Castillian. And if he was Castillian, the likelihood of his exposure to Portuguese is as slim as me finding a Spanish speaker in Miami.
Dude spoke a language he knew, in other words.
Wierwille himself told a story of how he faked tongues by speaking in a language he knew. It's not far fetched.
IF the world's least competent linguist did indeed recognize these two languages, I would bet a year's salary that the people who produced those languages were already quite familiar with them. Of course, we'll never know that, because they conveniently [as always] vanish from the tale, depriving anyone and everyone of the opportunity to inquire.
In 100 percent of these stories, either the speaker or the person who understands the language conveniently vanishes, never to be seen or heard from again. I call them the West Bubbatanians, after their country of origin, West Bubbatania, which is itself the GSC-safe translation of West Bubbafudge.
When you get tired and defeated trying to deal with my challenges you resort to attacking me as a liar. I never said I was a professional coder, dancer, or comedian. I said that I have some pretty extensive experience in those areas.
Are you a jealous one-trick-pony, yourself?
Sheesh! I have deep experience in a lot more than what you mentioned.
I am neither tired nor defeated, and I've handled every one of your challenges. But there are dozens, hundreds of questions, challenges of mine you've left unanswered.
Just in these recent pages alone, Waysider has asked and challenged you repeatedly on one point. No answer.
I have never called you a liar. Delusional, yes. In denial, yes. Liar, no.
I never accused you of being a "professional" dancer, comedian or coder. At least, not that I recall. If I did, I didn't mean it.
I'm not jealous at all. And I don't know any tricks.
I was in this fellowship meeting once and this guy I didn't know spoke in tongues and interpreted. His tongue had a whole bunch of words I recognized from high school Spanish class. (I don't know if his tongue matched the interpretation, on account of I didn't get such good grades in the class.)
Isn't that wonderful?... (The tongue part, not my bad grades.)
WITAF does this actually mean in the first place. Needs and wants are typically perpendicular according to God, in that lusts such as VPW exemplified are perpendicular to morality and God's will on adultery, fornication, love of money, drunkenness....so having them parallel is what exactly? Rationalized sin? Such confusing bullshonta that clearly has no scriptural basis as out pointed out Nathan_Jr
He was not Jesus Christ; he had sin in his life like you and me.
No, I dont have sin in my life like vic had and I seriously hope you don't have the same sins of sexual predations in your life there mike. He was a predator who went to his grave hugging his sins like a trophy. Find me one instance of victor paul wierwille repenting of rampant adultery, of using his position of power to molest young women, of using his postion of power to have others procure young women for him to molest, or married women for him to molest...one instance. His own wife said at his graveside "He was a mean man." Not exatlctly exemplifiying the love of God now was he. VPW would be a different case had he repented and changed but he never did, and that makes him a wolf in sheeps clothing having eyes full of adultery. And yes, I have done some horrible things that I have in part discussed on GSC. The difference is, and why I discuss them here, is I have repented, asked for forgiveness, and am actively making amends and producing fruits worthy of repentance. Yes that matters mike. Wierwille taught Christianity was about getting stuff. Plain and simple. He rationalized and miminised sin. Christianity at it's very heart is the eradication and confession of sin as well as the eradication of the sin nature a new nature given in Jesus Christ at the new birth. Weve been given a choice.
Wrong again. Are you trying to beat some kind of crazy Guiness record?
Pamsandiego knew me many years prior to me posting here, and she was the one who recommended to me while we were walking along the beach one day that I should come and post here. That was before I was dragged here by Research Geek and alphacat without my consent.
I met Pawtucket at Pam's house.
I met with Pam and Sirguessalot together and had coffee once.
Several posters and/or read-only grads here contacted me and we became became close friends, with lots of phone calls.
...did I mention I am viewing this as a first rough draft of a future book?
Ok I just find it hard to believe that one person can be this dense.
Did you realize that to write a book that involves reading? You haven’t even shown the ability to get through a book in a year.
1. I already raised that point, but appreciate the refresher.
2. My comment, that I would drop the digression, was regarding the topic of the reliability of the gospel of John, not Ralph D's dubious SIT confirmation story.
3. I think, assuming Ralph D told the truth, that his father was clearly the least inquisitive linguist in the history of linguistics. I would be embarrassed to relay a story that so betrayed my own father's professiomal incompetence.
Still, there are clues in the account that establish its kinship with solid bovine waste produçt.
Like how the speaker produced Portuguese with a slight Castillian accent.
People don't speak in accents that are foreign to their native tongue. If he spoke with a Castillian accent it's because he was Castillian. And if he was Castillian, the likelihood of his exposure to Portuguese is as slim as me finding a Spanish speaker in Miami.
Dude spoke a language he knew, in other words.
Wierwille himself told a story of how he faked tongues by speaking in a language he knew. It's not far fetched.
IF the world's least competent linguist did indeed recognize these two languages, I would bet a year's salary that the people who produced those languages were already quite familiar with them. Of course, we'll never know that, because they conveniently [as always] vanish from the tale, depriving anyone and everyone of the opportunity to inquire.
In 100 percent of these stories, either the speaker or the person who understands the language conveniently vanishes, never to be seen or heard from again. I call them the West Bubbatanians, after their country of origin, West Bubbatania, which is itself the GSC-safe translation of West Bubbafudge.
I wonder if we will ever find the true origins of the Lo shonta language spoken on film by VP.
I know it’s a dialect from a small Italian fishing town on the Malakasita coast.
If you search the archives here, we went into this in great detail long ago.
One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation.
There are several times when VPW had a pet definition for something, or he tended to lean on a rare usage of a word. When it was pointed out to him, he changed his vocabulary. The only example I can remember this minute of this was in the Blue Book where regarding canine restraint, the word "unloosed" changed to "unleashed." I think something similar happened with "all without exception and all without distinction."
*/*/*
The word "parallel" came from VPW's live teaching days before the filming of the class, and when he said it he used body language to clarify what he meant by "parallel," illustrating it with his arms. This did not come through well in the film class, SO in the PFAL book there are a couple of places where the word "balanced" was substituted for the word "parallel."
The word "balanced" perfectly communicates the data.
Also communicating this same data is the rich context in the film class that surrounds the use of "parallel." I never noticed the word "balanced" put into the book until we were debating the issue here about 15 years ago. This situation is very similar to the red drapes deletion.
When I sat in the film class, I absolutely had ZERO trouble understanding what VPW meant by "needs and wants parallel" because of the supporting context. It was plain as day because of benign redundancy in VPW's communicating the idea in the context, as well as in that one word.
*/*/*
Not understanding what "needs and wants parallel" means is another example of people not paying good attention when hearing the film class, or having limited intelligence, or having a very inflexible way of assigning meaning to others' words, or some other deficiency, like memory loss or lack of desire or trust.
My revealing this about the word "balanced" should totally fix any misunderstandings you may have had all these years.
If you are still in the dark, I will post to transcript for you to read, so you can once again have that very supportive context that VPW wrapped around his idiosyncratic use of the word "balanced." If that doesn't completely solve this, then I would suspect a lack of desire to understand.
If you search the archives here, we went into this in great detail long ago.
One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation.
There are several times when VPW had a pet definition for something, or he tended to lean on a rare usage of a word. When it was pointed out to him, he changed his vocabulary. The only example I can remember this minute of this was in the Blue Book where regarding canine restraint, the word "unloosed" changed to "unleashed." I think something similar happened with "all without exception and all without distinction."
*/*/*
The word "parallel" came from VPW's live teaching days before the filming of the class, and when he said it he used body language to clarify what he meant by "parallel," illustrating it with his arms. This did not come through well in the film class, SO in the PFAL book there are a couple of places where the word "balanced" was substituted for the word "parallel."
The word "balanced" perfectly communicates the data.
Also communicating this same data is the rich context in the film class that surrounds the use of "parallel." I never noticed the word "balanced" put into the book until we were debating the issue here about 15 years ago. This situation is very similar to the red drapes deletion.
When I sat in the film class, I absolutely had ZERO trouble understanding what VPW meant by "needs and wants parallel" because of the supporting context. It was plain as day because of benign redundancy in VPW's communicating the idea in the context, as well as in that one word.
*/*/*
Not understanding what "needs and wants parallel" means is another example of people not paying good attention when hearing the film class, or having limited intelligence, or having a very inflexible way of assigning meaning to others' words, or some other deficiency, like memory loss or lack of desire or trust.
My revealing this about the word "balanced" should totally fix any misunderstandings you may have had all these years.
If you are still in the dark, I will post to transcript for you to read, so you can once again have that very supportive context that VPW wrapped around his idiosyncratic use of the word "balanced." If that doesn't completely solve this, then I would suspect a lack of desire to understand.
You include every possibility except VPW was full of bullshonta. I have no reason to ever turn back to false doctrines and false prophets, which saint vic taught and most definitely was.
This is one of those statements made to sound like heavy revie, but when you unpack it you realize it means nothing.
Define wants.
Define needs.
How are they balanced? How do you know when they're balanced?
Poof! The whole sentence vanishes into thin air.
This is one of those TVTs in the collaterals we were talking about in the above post.
46 minutes ago, Mike said:
Not understanding what "needs and wants parallel" means is another example of people not paying good attention when hearing the film class, or having limited intelligence, or having a very inflexible way of assigning meaning to others' words, or some other deficiency, like memory loss or lack of desire or trust.
No, it means a sexual predator tried to pull a fast one and got caught at it.
Besides I thought you've wasted how many pages of bandwidth claiming the ministry and the class didn't teach material abundance and yet here it is another example of how to get anything from God.
I thought God only met our needs. So this statement is a none issue. There is no need to consider whether wants and needs are balanced, just default to needs.
46 minutes ago, Mike said:
If you are still in the dark, I will post to transcript for you to
Save your typing if it was unclear 30 years ago it'll be just as unclear now.
46 minutes ago, Mike said:
If that doesn't completely solve this, then I would suspect a lack of desire to understand.
Really!?
I would suspect a lack of desire to communicate, as you're responsible for your communication and it's not our job to guess what you mean.
Where in 1 John 5:14 is the idea of balancing needs and wants? That's Vic's proof text.
victor asked if this verse was wonderful, then. Then, THEN went into the parallel/balance of material needs and wants.
Here below is an example of needs low, and wants high; need and want not balanced.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
*/*/*/*
Here is an example of needs and wants balanced.
1John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
When we ask according to His will, then we are not asking according to our lusts or great desires that are way beyond, and out of balance with our needs.
That verse was not VPW's proof text here. It was the simple introduction to the topic. Others could have been used.
*/*/*/*
Do you need more? To see that this "needs and wants balanced" is a super simple common sense thing that pops up in numerous scriptures, with the same idea, it not the same vocabulary words.
Only a complete idiot contrarian would not be able to understand exactly what Dr was talking about in the class, after all this detail from me.
I am rooting for your sunesis here.
I think you can do it.
Here below is an example of needs low, and wants high; need and want not balanced.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
My God, it absolutely does NOT say what you are trying to make it say!!! Read what's written without wierwille goggles dude. He's talking about people asking God amiss because they are trying to fulfill their lusts....this has nothing to do with needs low and wants high.
When I sat in the film class, I absolutely had ZERO trouble understanding what VPW meant by "needs and wants parallel" because of the supporting context. It was plain as day because of benign redundancy in VPW's communicating the idea in the context, as well as in that one word.
Yet 50 years later and you still can't explain what it means but have to provide 10 paragraphs of word salad and some twisted scriptures to try and make it fit...
Here below is an example of needs low, and wants high; need and want not balanced.
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
*/*/*/*
Here is an example of needs and wants balanced.
1John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
When we ask according to His will, then we are not asking according to our lusts or great desires that are way beyond, and out of balance with our needs.
That verse was not VPW's proof text here. It was the simple introduction to the topic. Others could have been used.
*/*/*/*
Do you need more? To see that this "needs and wants balanced" is a super simple common sense thing that pops up in numerous scriptures, with the same idea, it not the same vocabulary words.
Only a complete idiot contrarian would not be able to understand exactly what Dr was talking about in the class, after all this detail from me.
I am rooting for your sunesis here.
I think you can do it.
Again, this whole discussion was prefaced with TO RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM GOD in the class.
I thought you said the class didn't teach material abundance.
Also, it's Saint Vic spreading this TVT and it's in the collaterals.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
waysider
He did?
As a friend of mine whose native tongue is not English likes to say, "I must not have tensioned when he said that."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, that could happen. I dont see that happening in the class or collaterals, though. He was not Jesus Christ; he had sin in his life like you and me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, not like me. I never broke the law, at least seriously, basically parking violations. So my level of sin was nowhere near his.
But it did happen in the class and collaterals, as Waysider has been pointing out to you. As I've been pointing out to you.
You just refuse to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Your level of temptations was nowhere near his.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And you know what level of temptation I've been subject to ...how?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Again you make excuses for evil behavior.
You: Oh we have to excuse Saint Vic using roofies on woman, his temptation was so great.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Ever feminist in your read only audience should be giving you a talking to. Your blaming the women for what happened to them. Oh,you claim, the woman's level of temptation was too high. (Blame the victim. It wasn't his fault. It was them. They were too tempting.)
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. I already raised that point, but appreciate the refresher.
2. My comment, that I would drop the digression, was regarding the topic of the reliability of the gospel of John, not Ralph D's dubious SIT confirmation story.
3. I think, assuming Ralph D told the truth, that his father was clearly the least inquisitive linguist in the history of linguistics. I would be embarrassed to relay a story that so betrayed my own father's professiomal incompetence.
Still, there are clues in the account that establish its kinship with solid bovine waste produçt.
Like how the speaker produced Portuguese with a slight Castillian accent.
People don't speak in accents that are foreign to their native tongue. If he spoke with a Castillian accent it's because he was Castillian. And if he was Castillian, the likelihood of his exposure to Portuguese is as slim as me finding a Spanish speaker in Miami.
Dude spoke a language he knew, in other words.
Wierwille himself told a story of how he faked tongues by speaking in a language he knew. It's not far fetched.
IF the world's least competent linguist did indeed recognize these two languages, I would bet a year's salary that the people who produced those languages were already quite familiar with them. Of course, we'll never know that, because they conveniently [as always] vanish from the tale, depriving anyone and everyone of the opportunity to inquire.
In 100 percent of these stories, either the speaker or the person who understands the language conveniently vanishes, never to be seen or heard from again. I call them the West Bubbatanians, after their country of origin, West Bubbatania, which is itself the GSC-safe translation of West Bubbafudge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I am neither tired nor defeated, and I've handled every one of your challenges. But there are dozens, hundreds of questions, challenges of mine you've left unanswered.
Just in these recent pages alone, Waysider has asked and challenged you repeatedly on one point. No answer.
I have never called you a liar. Delusional, yes. In denial, yes. Liar, no.
I never accused you of being a "professional" dancer, comedian or coder. At least, not that I recall. If I did, I didn't mean it.
I'm not jealous at all. And I don't know any tricks.
I know nothing of your experience. Nor do I care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I was in this fellowship meeting once and this guy I didn't know spoke in tongues and interpreted. His tongue had a whole bunch of words I recognized from high school Spanish class. (I don't know if his tongue matched the interpretation, on account of I didn't get such good grades in the class.)
Isn't that wonderful?... (The tongue part, not my bad grades.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
WITAF does this actually mean in the first place. Needs and wants are typically perpendicular according to God, in that lusts such as VPW exemplified are perpendicular to morality and God's will on adultery, fornication, love of money, drunkenness....so having them parallel is what exactly? Rationalized sin? Such confusing bullshonta that clearly has no scriptural basis as out pointed out Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No, I dont have sin in my life like vic had and I seriously hope you don't have the same sins of sexual predations in your life there mike. He was a predator who went to his grave hugging his sins like a trophy. Find me one instance of victor paul wierwille repenting of rampant adultery, of using his position of power to molest young women, of using his postion of power to have others procure young women for him to molest, or married women for him to molest...one instance. His own wife said at his graveside "He was a mean man." Not exatlctly exemplifiying the love of God now was he. VPW would be a different case had he repented and changed but he never did, and that makes him a wolf in sheeps clothing having eyes full of adultery. And yes, I have done some horrible things that I have in part discussed on GSC. The difference is, and why I discuss them here, is I have repented, asked for forgiveness, and am actively making amends and producing fruits worthy of repentance. Yes that matters mike. Wierwille taught Christianity was about getting stuff. Plain and simple. He rationalized and miminised sin. Christianity at it's very heart is the eradication and confession of sin as well as the eradication of the sin nature a new nature given in Jesus Christ at the new birth. Weve been given a choice.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ok I just find it hard to believe that one person can be this dense.
Did you realize that to write a book that involves reading? You haven’t even shown the ability to get through a book in a year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I wonder if we will ever find the true origins of the Lo shonta language spoken on film by VP.
I know it’s a dialect from a small Italian fishing town on the Malakasita coast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Regarding "needs and wants parallel"
If you search the archives here, we went into this in great detail long ago.
One of the keys taught in PFAL that I have NEVER heard anyone expound on is how God uses His spokesman's vocabulary in revelation.
There are several times when VPW had a pet definition for something, or he tended to lean on a rare usage of a word. When it was pointed out to him, he changed his vocabulary. The only example I can remember this minute of this was in the Blue Book where regarding canine restraint, the word "unloosed" changed to "unleashed." I think something similar happened with "all without exception and all without distinction."
*/*/*
The word "parallel" came from VPW's live teaching days before the filming of the class, and when he said it he used body language to clarify what he meant by "parallel," illustrating it with his arms. This did not come through well in the film class, SO in the PFAL book there are a couple of places where the word "balanced" was substituted for the word "parallel."
The word "balanced" perfectly communicates the data.
Also communicating this same data is the rich context in the film class that surrounds the use of "parallel." I never noticed the word "balanced" put into the book until we were debating the issue here about 15 years ago. This situation is very similar to the red drapes deletion.
When I sat in the film class, I absolutely had ZERO trouble understanding what VPW meant by "needs and wants parallel" because of the supporting context. It was plain as day because of benign redundancy in VPW's communicating the idea in the context, as well as in that one word.
*/*/*
Not understanding what "needs and wants parallel" means is another example of people not paying good attention when hearing the film class, or having limited intelligence, or having a very inflexible way of assigning meaning to others' words, or some other deficiency, like memory loss or lack of desire or trust.
My revealing this about the word "balanced" should totally fix any misunderstandings you may have had all these years.
If you are still in the dark, I will post to transcript for you to read, so you can once again have that very supportive context that VPW wrapped around his idiosyncratic use of the word "balanced." If that doesn't completely solve this, then I would suspect a lack of desire to understand.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Where in 1 John 5:14 is the idea of balancing needs and wants? That's Vic's proof text.
victor asked if this verse was wonderful, then. Then, THEN went into the parallel/balance of material needs and wants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You include every possibility except VPW was full of bullshonta. I have no reason to ever turn back to false doctrines and false prophets, which saint vic taught and most definitely was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This is one of those statements made to sound like heavy revie, but when you unpack it you realize it means nothing.
Define wants.
Define needs.
How are they balanced? How do you know when they're balanced?
Poof! The whole sentence vanishes into thin air.
This is one of those TVTs in the collaterals we were talking about in the above post.
No, it means a sexual predator tried to pull a fast one and got caught at it.
Besides I thought you've wasted how many pages of bandwidth claiming the ministry and the class didn't teach material abundance and yet here it is another example of how to get anything from God.
I thought God only met our needs. So this statement is a none issue. There is no need to consider whether wants and needs are balanced, just default to needs.
Save your typing if it was unclear 30 years ago it'll be just as unclear now.
Really!?
I would suspect a lack of desire to communicate, as you're responsible for your communication and it's not our job to guess what you mean.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here below is an example of needs low, and wants high; need and want not balanced.
James 4:3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
*/*/*/*
And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
I think you can do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
My God, it absolutely does NOT say what you are trying to make it say!!! Read what's written without wierwille goggles dude. He's talking about people asking God amiss because they are trying to fulfill their lusts....this has nothing to do with needs low and wants high.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yet 50 years later and you still can't explain what it means but have to provide 10 paragraphs of word salad and some twisted scriptures to try and make it fit...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Again, this whole discussion was prefaced with TO RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM GOD in the class.
I thought you said the class didn't teach material abundance.
Also, it's Saint Vic spreading this TVT and it's in the collaterals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Looks like just slinging insults around isn't working, Mike. They're ignoring them and focusing on all the flawed reasoning you're trying to hide.
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.