Hi Rafael. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. :)-->
I see what you mean about supposed AE #31. Toss it in the IE bin with the law of believing and the deity of Christ questions.
What about VP's excessively narrow definition of pros. I know you've mentioned it in your posts to Shmegel-uh, Mike when you reminded him that VP said if any other word than pros were used in John 1:1, the whole Bible would fall to pieces. Weirwille defined pros as "together with, yet distinctly independent of". The obvious implication is that pros always carries this specific meaning. Otherwise, why would the Bible crumble if any other preposition were used?
In fact, pros is used over 600 times and is usually translated "unto". See if you can get the togetherwithyetdistinctlyindepentof meaning out of any of these verses. (The word translated from pros in each verse is in bold type.)
quote:
Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Luke 6:11 And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Acts 24:12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Obviously, the usage of pros in the verses above doesn't fit VP's definition. Or I should say, VP's definition doesn't fit the Biblical use of this word. How that impacts the interpretation of John 1:1 is a matter for another thread. :P-->
The problem with the pros error is, Wierwille's all over the map on this one. He's so insistent on its meaning in John 1:1 that the whole Bible falls apart if any other word is used. But in other places, he translates pros as "with a view toward..." So the meaning is A when convenient, and B when convenient. The fact that one word can have multiple meanings seems to have escaped him (which is amusing, considering that pistis has only one meaning, yet he gives it two).
The statement that "The Bible would fall to pieces if any other word was used" is silly. I believe there's an error involved here. I'll jsut be darned if I know what it is. I can't narrow it down.
Does he ever write that pros ALWAYS means together with yet distinctly independent? If he does, that settles it. If not, the error is in the statement that the Bible would fall to pieces etc. There's a lot of wiggle room for Wierwille's precioussss defenders on this one. I'm a tad uncertain.
The thing about VPW and his character (or lack thereof) relating to this thread and the validity of the doctrine of the trinity, is that VPW's character (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of trinitarianism or unitarianism, as there have been sainst and slime on both sides of the aisle.
I've just received, from Mike, Earl Burton's article on the meaning of "private interpretation." In it, he directly confronts Bullinger's explanation of that verse and tries to show how Wierwille was right and Bullinger was wrong.
Let me state first, unequivocally, that I disagree with Burton. I think his analysis is simply incorrect, an attempt to validate Wierwille's position, not to objectively analyze the passage in question. Most of the proofs he employs actually prove Bullinger right. For example, he states that "cunningly devised fables" are the result of incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Misinterpreting the Bible is not "cunningly devising." Cunningly devising means making up something clever. In contrasting cunningly devised fables with the inspired Word of God, Peter is distinguishing between source: The source of God's Word is "moved by the Holy Ghost". The source of fables is "cunningly devised", ie, men. This lends support to Bullinger's contention that "private interpretation" refers to the source, not the meaning, of scripture.
Nonetheless, Burton does make a valiant attempt to prove Wierwille right. I disagree with his conclusion, but the article convinces me that Wierwille's error concerning private interpretation is, itself, an error of interpretation.
Maybe after a couple of Coronas, I'll feel differently.
As I have said before I support what you are doing here. I speak from fuzzy memories. But some of TWI's basic doctrines are in error. But you may say that is error of interpretation.
Well what if it isn't? VPW has zero, nada, zip credibility. His works are worthless and he conclusions suspect.
What was the apparent premise of all his ideas.
To me, it was to be as different from the orthodox church as possible. To claim divine authority to preach and to be the star of all shows.
His logic would force him to change words, meanings and use figures of speech where appropriate to convince us he was the only who has seen this stuff.
His conclusions were flawed because they were built on his lust for power and to be "unique."
So we must, if we are honest, dive back into PFAL and see the reason he wanted to be different.
We must also have the covering of the Holy Spirit and take advantage of non-Way scholars to show the error of his ways.
But keep up the good work.
Would his admimistrationalism count as an error.
It would appear all of the New Testament was written to the church in one form or another.
The thing about trinitarianism vs. unitarianism is that it isn't unique to Wierwille. The concepts of one God and Jesus Christ not being God goes back for centuries.
And despite Wierwille's lack of character, and no matter how you wish to apply the "you shall know them by their fruits" doctrine, the point I made still stands, on its own.
Ok def, let me put it like this and see if you can see what I'm saying. I don't doubt your support of this thread.
Do you agree that the subject of the Trinity is a huge theological debate, and that there's more than one point of view on the subject (regardless of how strongly you feel about your point of view)?
Do you agree that the same is true for dispensationalism?
Ok, good. Do you expect those issues to be resolved on this thread? Oooooof course not. You're not going to convert a single anti-trinitarian, and no one else is going to convert you.
I'm looking for, and listing, errors that are indisputable. I have no interest in the grand arguments of Wierwillism because they are not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this thread (which is to show that Wierwille's books do not meet their own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed").
We won't all agree that Jesus Christ is/ain't God. But we can all agree that David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Bathsheba incident, not after (as Wierwille said). There's simply no argument about that.
I think the purpose of this thread, and the propriety of limiting its scope, became very clear once the "official minority voice" began posting and even ADMITTED that his method of dealing with the errors we've noted is to dodge, distract, change the subject and do ANYTHING except admit an error is an error.
I hope the power of that confrontation, and the powerless response to it, can help others devoted to Wierwille see that the little orange book they hold in their hands does not deserve the devotion they pour into it.
They will never question the larger issues that you and Steve present if they are not at least willing to acknowledge the smaller, more verifiable, 2+2=5 errors addressed on this thread.
Besides, these are my rules. I make 'em up. :)-->
Edit: Trinitarianism and dispensationalism are not actual errors. If they are errors at all, they are interpretational. HOWEVER: any of Wierwille's methods of proving his point of view on these issues may qualify as actual errors. I think one error, as implied by def, is Wierwille's insistence that people were considered Jews or Gentiles, but that the Church of God is distinct from them. I see Paul constantly referring to believing Christians as Gentiles, showing that he did not see the sharp division between the terms that Wierwille did.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 04, 2003 at 5:44.]
And in response to Def, I must say that, despite my anger at having been deceived so thoroughly, I would stop short of saying he has "no credibility" and "his works are worthless". The doctrine on speaking in tongues blessed hundreds of thousands. He may have twisted some words to present it, I still believe that this is a true doctrine and that it was a great benefit to the Church of Christ, not just the Way.
And, speaking of dispensationalism, would VP's twisting of the definition of oikonomia , which Steve referred to, be counted as an actual error? The Biblical usage of the word really doesn't have the connotation of a period of time, as Steve has mentioned repeatedly. It means stewardship. Mr. Lortz could probably provide more details.
Jerry - I'm presently pondering how to begin a thread I'll start posting in a few days time. The thread will be "Implications of PFAL Errors", or "Deeper Errors in PFAL", or something like that. Rafael has done an admirable job of doing what he set out to do, without becoming bogged down, or distracted onto some doctrinal tangent. I regard interpretational errors as being "actual", even though that particular aspect of "actuality" was outside Rafael's scope for this thread.
One of the things I want to do is to examine the actual, specific rhetorical techniques Wierwille used to deceive our thinking. Another is to address Wierwille's errors of omission. Another is to examine errors that came into our thinking, not so much a result of Wierwille's analysis, but as a result of his plagiarism.
We may get into detailed examinations of dispensationalism, the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc., but it might be best to spin off subsidiary threads regarding specific subjects in order to keep the "mother" thread on topic.
I also believe there are topics, such as the "speaking in tongues" that you brought up, Jerry, where there is much truth admixed with some error. I think it's important for us to examine issues like that, as well.
Just some thoughts. I'm looking forward to getting the dialogue rolling.
O.K., I don't know if this is an actual error or just your garden variety B.S., but...
remember the ridiculous statement "All walking is just a series of controlled falls"? (I didn't even buy this B.S. as a fawning Wayforite) To which I can only reply - No, it's not.
It's ... WALKING! Falling doesn't have anything to do with it. Why, one can even lean waaaay back and still walk (ala the R. Crumb character of "keep on truckin'" fame)
If I remember correctly, he was in the renewed mind section, encouraging us to "claim our sonship rights" (Hey is that another ae?) and renew our minds. I think it was designed to reduce fear of failure. He said all walking is just falling and catching yourself before your nose hits.
I don't know if that counts as an actual error or not. Have to ask Raf on that one.
I think it's a silly illustration. An actual error? Ahhh, more like a waste of ink. I don't know what to do with it.
"Ministry of Reconciliation" sounds top me more like a sonship responsibility than a sonship right. And why are sonship rights limited to five? I think there are far more.
Just my opinion. Haven't checked out either post enough to satisfy my concerns for this thread.
I am leaning toward including Wierwille's treatment of Romans 11:13, 21 and 22 as an actual error, studying Steve's earlier post on the subject. Still working on it.
Actually, walking really is a controlled fall. Think about it: if it weren't, striking an object with your foot while walking would only stop you, not make you stumble and fall. This is why walking robots have been prohibitively expensive to make. Wheels and treads are far simpler.
Walking is all about controlled shifting of balance, monitored and adjusted constantly by a large network of nerves and the balance centers of the inner ear. We do it unconsciously, but the processing and response required takes a fairly sophisticated computer and motor system to reproduce.
BTW, George, have you tried leaning backwards and walking? Watch where your feet go when you try it.
Umm, I can't find this comment about walking in the PFAL book. Not that I've dissected every page, but I just don't see it. So unless someone finds it in writing, it's an interesting (on-topic) chat, but not one I'll seek to make a final decision on, and certainly not one for the list.
Steve,
I may write you privately if I can't make up my mind.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Jbarrax
Hi Rafael. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.
:)-->
I see what you mean about supposed AE #31. Toss it in the IE bin with the law of believing and the deity of Christ questions.
What about VP's excessively narrow definition of pros. I know you've mentioned it in your posts to Shmegel-uh, Mike when you reminded him that VP said if any other word than pros were used in John 1:1, the whole Bible would fall to pieces. Weirwille defined pros as "together with, yet distinctly independent of". The obvious implication is that pros always carries this specific meaning. Otherwise, why would the Bible crumble if any other preposition were used?
In fact, pros is used over 600 times and is usually translated "unto". See if you can get the togetherwithyetdistinctlyindepentof meaning out of any of these verses. (The word translated from pros in each verse is in bold type.)
Obviously, the usage of pros in the verses above doesn't fit VP's definition. Or I should say, VP's definition doesn't fit the Biblical use of this word. How that impacts the interpretation of John 1:1 is a matter for another thread.
:P-->
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
What I am saying is that vic was a charlatan and that his character must be included in any criticism of his "scholarly" work.
What was going on in his life when he was growing spiritually? And which spirit was he growing?
Since his works ulitmately took people away from Christ and toward him, his conclusions and logic are suspect.
I can't do the exhaustive work Rafael has done, befcause I chucked all my way books a long time ago.
Now I look at scripture when I remember what I had learned in the way.
I may not gain brownie points here, but that's not my motive. I offer different views on some subjects.
e
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Jerry - Shmegel-uh? Did you perhaps mean Meshuggeneh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem with pros...
The problem with the pros error is, Wierwille's all over the map on this one. He's so insistent on its meaning in John 1:1 that the whole Bible falls apart if any other word is used. But in other places, he translates pros as "with a view toward..." So the meaning is A when convenient, and B when convenient. The fact that one word can have multiple meanings seems to have escaped him (which is amusing, considering that pistis has only one meaning, yet he gives it two).
The statement that "The Bible would fall to pieces if any other word was used" is silly. I believe there's an error involved here. I'll jsut be darned if I know what it is. I can't narrow it down.
Does he ever write that pros ALWAYS means together with yet distinctly independent? If he does, that settles it. If not, the error is in the statement that the Bible would fall to pieces etc. There's a lot of wiggle room for Wierwille's precioussss defenders on this one. I'm a tad uncertain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Def,
The thing about VPW and his character (or lack thereof) relating to this thread and the validity of the doctrine of the trinity, is that VPW's character (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of trinitarianism or unitarianism, as there have been sainst and slime on both sides of the aisle.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Sorry all for the topic veer...
Garth, I defend def's point about Wierwille's™ charcter vis-a-vis his teachings. Particularly his unique teachings. Though I suppose any erroneous teachings will fall on their own demerits. But you cannot completely separate the doctrine from the teacher...they were always inextricably united. Wierwille's© character alone was sufficient to justify this thread and others like it.
Good work y'all, carry on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've just received, from Mike, Earl Burton's article on the meaning of "private interpretation." In it, he directly confronts Bullinger's explanation of that verse and tries to show how Wierwille was right and Bullinger was wrong.
Let me state first, unequivocally, that I disagree with Burton. I think his analysis is simply incorrect, an attempt to validate Wierwille's position, not to objectively analyze the passage in question. Most of the proofs he employs actually prove Bullinger right. For example, he states that "cunningly devised fables" are the result of incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Misinterpreting the Bible is not "cunningly devising." Cunningly devising means making up something clever. In contrasting cunningly devised fables with the inspired Word of God, Peter is distinguishing between source: The source of God's Word is "moved by the Holy Ghost". The source of fables is "cunningly devised", ie, men. This lends support to Bullinger's contention that "private interpretation" refers to the source, not the meaning, of scripture.
Nonetheless, Burton does make a valiant attempt to prove Wierwille right. I disagree with his conclusion, but the article convinces me that Wierwille's error concerning private interpretation is, itself, an error of interpretation.
Maybe after a couple of Coronas, I'll feel differently.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
MIke is likened to Gollum with his preciousssss PFAL book, Gollums real name is Smeagol (Shmegel)
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Raf
As I have said before I support what you are doing here. I speak from fuzzy memories. But some of TWI's basic doctrines are in error. But you may say that is error of interpretation.
Well what if it isn't? VPW has zero, nada, zip credibility. His works are worthless and he conclusions suspect.
What was the apparent premise of all his ideas.
To me, it was to be as different from the orthodox church as possible. To claim divine authority to preach and to be the star of all shows.
His logic would force him to change words, meanings and use figures of speech where appropriate to convince us he was the only who has seen this stuff.
His conclusions were flawed because they were built on his lust for power and to be "unique."
So we must, if we are honest, dive back into PFAL and see the reason he wanted to be different.
We must also have the covering of the Holy Spirit and take advantage of non-Way scholars to show the error of his ways.
But keep up the good work.
Would his admimistrationalism count as an error.
It would appear all of the New Testament was written to the church in one form or another.
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evan,
The thing about trinitarianism vs. unitarianism is that it isn't unique to Wierwille. The concepts of one God and Jesus Christ not being God goes back for centuries.
And despite Wierwille's lack of character, and no matter how you wish to apply the "you shall know them by their fruits" doctrine, the point I made still stands, on its own.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok def, let me put it like this and see if you can see what I'm saying. I don't doubt your support of this thread.
Do you agree that the subject of the Trinity is a huge theological debate, and that there's more than one point of view on the subject (regardless of how strongly you feel about your point of view)?
Do you agree that the same is true for dispensationalism?
Ok, good. Do you expect those issues to be resolved on this thread? Oooooof course not. You're not going to convert a single anti-trinitarian, and no one else is going to convert you.
I'm looking for, and listing, errors that are indisputable. I have no interest in the grand arguments of Wierwillism because they are not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this thread (which is to show that Wierwille's books do not meet their own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed").
We won't all agree that Jesus Christ is/ain't God. But we can all agree that David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Bathsheba incident, not after (as Wierwille said). There's simply no argument about that.
I think the purpose of this thread, and the propriety of limiting its scope, became very clear once the "official minority voice" began posting and even ADMITTED that his method of dealing with the errors we've noted is to dodge, distract, change the subject and do ANYTHING except admit an error is an error.
I hope the power of that confrontation, and the powerless response to it, can help others devoted to Wierwille see that the little orange book they hold in their hands does not deserve the devotion they pour into it.
They will never question the larger issues that you and Steve present if they are not at least willing to acknowledge the smaller, more verifiable, 2+2=5 errors addressed on this thread.
Besides, these are my rules. I make 'em up.
:)-->
Edit: Trinitarianism and dispensationalism are not actual errors. If they are errors at all, they are interpretational. HOWEVER: any of Wierwille's methods of proving his point of view on these issues may qualify as actual errors. I think one error, as implied by def, is Wierwille's insistence that people were considered Jews or Gentiles, but that the Church of God is distinct from them. I see Paul constantly referring to believing Christians as Gentiles, showing that he did not see the sharp division between the terms that Wierwille did.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 04, 2003 at 5:44.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well said, Rafael.
And in response to Def, I must say that, despite my anger at having been deceived so thoroughly, I would stop short of saying he has "no credibility" and "his works are worthless". The doctrine on speaking in tongues blessed hundreds of thousands. He may have twisted some words to present it, I still believe that this is a true doctrine and that it was a great benefit to the Church of Christ, not just the Way.
And, speaking of dispensationalism, would VP's twisting of the definition of oikonomia , which Steve referred to, be counted as an actual error? The Biblical usage of the word really doesn't have the connotation of a period of time, as Steve has mentioned repeatedly. It means stewardship. Mr. Lortz could probably provide more details.
Whaddayathink, Raf?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jerry - I'm presently pondering how to begin a thread I'll start posting in a few days time. The thread will be "Implications of PFAL Errors", or "Deeper Errors in PFAL", or something like that. Rafael has done an admirable job of doing what he set out to do, without becoming bogged down, or distracted onto some doctrinal tangent. I regard interpretational errors as being "actual", even though that particular aspect of "actuality" was outside Rafael's scope for this thread.
One of the things I want to do is to examine the actual, specific rhetorical techniques Wierwille used to deceive our thinking. Another is to address Wierwille's errors of omission. Another is to examine errors that came into our thinking, not so much a result of Wierwille's analysis, but as a result of his plagiarism.
We may get into detailed examinations of dispensationalism, the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc., but it might be best to spin off subsidiary threads regarding specific subjects in order to keep the "mother" thread on topic.
I also believe there are topics, such as the "speaking in tongues" that you brought up, Jerry, where there is much truth admixed with some error. I think it's important for us to examine issues like that, as well.
Just some thoughts. I'm looking forward to getting the dialogue rolling.
Love,
Stev
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K., I don't know if this is an actual error or just your garden variety B.S., but...
remember the ridiculous statement "All walking is just a series of controlled falls"? (I didn't even buy this B.S. as a fawning Wayforite) To which I can only reply - No, it's not.
It's ... WALKING! Falling doesn't have anything to do with it. Why, one can even lean waaaay back and still walk (ala the R. Crumb character of "keep on truckin'" fame)
What WAS the point of that bit of tripe anyway?
geo.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi George.
If I remember correctly, he was in the renewed mind section, encouraging us to "claim our sonship rights" (Hey is that another ae?) and renew our minds. I think it was designed to reduce fear of failure. He said all walking is just falling and catching yourself before your nose hits.
I don't know if that counts as an actual error or not. Have to ask Raf on that one.
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
I'd say "All falling is walking and letting your nose hit the ground"
It's a half-empty, half-full thing...depends on your world view.
However, what kind of person would establish falling as the norm and walking as the aberration?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think it's a silly illustration. An actual error? Ahhh, more like a waste of ink. I don't know what to do with it.
"Ministry of Reconciliation" sounds top me more like a sonship responsibility than a sonship right. And why are sonship rights limited to five? I think there are far more.
Just my opinion. Haven't checked out either post enough to satisfy my concerns for this thread.
I am leaning toward including Wierwille's treatment of Romans 11:13, 21 and 22 as an actual error, studying Steve's earlier post on the subject. Still working on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Actually, walking really is a controlled fall. Think about it: if it weren't, striking an object with your foot while walking would only stop you, not make you stumble and fall. This is why walking robots have been prohibitively expensive to make. Wheels and treads are far simpler.
Walking is all about controlled shifting of balance, monitored and adjusted constantly by a large network of nerves and the balance centers of the inner ear. We do it unconsciously, but the processing and response required takes a fairly sophisticated computer and motor system to reproduce.
BTW, George, have you tried leaning backwards and walking? Watch where your feet go when you try it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Dang Zix, if I thought that hard I'd fall over every time.
I prefer going through life...thoughtlessly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Evan: Why does that not surprise me?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - If you've got any questions about how I view the verses in Romans 11, feel free to ask. I won't dodge 'em.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Zix,
Ouch!!
;)-->
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
There's a lot of cool stuff about walking and running, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Well, okay, a quick one.
:)-->
Stand up and try to run backwards for a few steps. Not that difficult, was it?
Now, put on a helmet and do it again, but this time make sure your heels hit the floor on every step.
[...]
Did that hurt?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Heh heh heh.
Zixar, I don't think you've PROVEN your case.
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok, ok, I'll stop.
Sigh.
Umm, I can't find this comment about walking in the PFAL book. Not that I've dissected every page, but I just don't see it. So unless someone finds it in writing, it's an interesting (on-topic) chat, but not one I'll seek to make a final decision on, and certainly not one for the list.
Steve,
I may write you privately if I can't make up my mind.
Raf
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.