Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A less bizarre discussion of religious beliefs.
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1 of 54 (890275)
12-29-2021 7:41 PM


In the thread "Do you have Questions for a Gnostic Christian?" jar expressed an interest in exploring our beliefs.
Propose this thread for that discussion.
Maybe something I said sparked his interest. Since it was jar's impetus I'll let him frame the discussion.
Faith and Belief forum, please.
I wouldn't think this exclusive to jar and me. Others may want to chime in to tell us how nuts we both are, but I have no objections if jar wants to make this exclusive.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 54 (890285)
12-31-2021 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
12-31-2021 10:59 AM


Re: a few preliminaries
I would like to start by outlining a few points I hope you will accept as being axiomatic.
I accept that you were acculturated in a christian environment. I was not. I accept that your beliefs are deep set in your psyche and are honestly felt however you represent them. I claim the same position.
And, of course, all of us act in accord with our acculturated personality. It cannot be other than that our beliefs guide our actions.
I have to accept your axioms. I have no choice, reality being what it is.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-31-2021 10:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 12-31-2021 2:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 54 (890299)
12-31-2021 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
12-31-2021 2:42 PM


I see religions as paths and guidelines. They establish a mutually agreed upon standards of conduct. But I do not see any such thing as the one true religion.
I’m thinking my views on religion are pretty much known to you. I’m not a fan to say the least.
All of the evidence seems to indicate that ALL religions are purely human creations.
Indeed, this is an observation with a very high level of confidence by the intelligentsia in the discipline. I don’t see in you one to ignore the obvious (as obvious as tentative science can make) and I personally think reality has a good hold on your psyche … except in this one glaring case, a persistent belief in this woo.
Somehow your spirit (which cannot be defined let alone located) exists after your physical energies (which is all we know to actually exist) have dissipated and your remaining matter is shredded into other cycles. I recognize you can’t give details like what color your robe is as you wait in line to see the boss or whatever because you're just a little fluffball of spirit, but you believe something (your conception of a god) is going to do its thing (at some place not in this universe?) by judging your actions in this life by some standard you perceive from the myths of biblical jesus (feed, clothe, do onto others, etc.) ending with a judgement of you can’t say resulting in a punishment of you don’t know what.
I'm not going to challenge any of your articles of faith.
None of them make a lot of sense anyway, jar.
Yet, in the rest of your world, as far as I can see, the earth is round, 545 nm wave length is green and disease is caused by bugs not by demons.
I wonder why the logical disconnect. Was the upbringing that strict or was there some epiphany? What was it that hit you in the head and knocked those few screws just ever so slightly loose? Grandma kept slapping you with the bible until you believed?
Some set of neurons got placed and reinforced that better should not have been. The nature appears strong so I'm thinking nurture did the wiring in that area.
I am so sorry that happened to you, but I'm glad your religious demon is at least small compared to others we see around here.
You're going to slap me silly now aren't you.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 12-31-2021 2:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-31-2021 5:48 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 54 (890308)
12-31-2021 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
12-31-2021 5:48 PM


But it was my nurturing that shaped my behavior. Even if all such beliefs are simply nonsense does that even matter?
Are you asking me if it matters if our behavior is governed by nonsensical beliefs? Of course it does.
Beliefs are of importance to the individual, but behavior has effects that go beyond the individual.
Why do you separate the two? Are beliefs not the cornerstone, the very basis from which our actions emanate?
Are there examples of my behavior that you can point to that might seem to justify the above quotation?
That’s the rub, jar. You seem a well centered bloke steeped in the reality of the human condition but you credit your motivation to your woo-woo religious beliefs which you admit are irrational. So, what I see is you are getting the right answers but by way of a faulty irrational algorithm. I've written programs like that. In the long term they come back to bite (byte) you, hard.
My point is that beliefs, even those that are totally unevidenced, irrational, illogical and absurd such as belief in the supernatural are only problematic if they contribute to counter-productive and harmful behavior.
I would counter that unevidenced, irrational, illogical and absurd beliefs in the supernatural are only problematic if they enter the human mind ... at all. The problems with these are they are too easily and too often manipulated for purposes of greed and blood. Whether such beliefs manifest in immediate direct harm in any specific situation is not at issue. It is faulty thinking, open to and responsible for some of the most barbaric abuses of humanity we have ever experienced and is no longer necessary in addition to being too damned dangerous to the species.
Behaviors based from evidenced, rational, logical, sane beliefs in reality don't seem to have these unevidenced, irrational, illogical and absurd results.
Look at the quote from your post and see where it falls.
You’re going to have to walk me through this. I don’t see it.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-31-2021 5:48 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 12-31-2021 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-07-2022 1:25 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 17 of 54 (890311)
12-31-2021 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
12-31-2021 8:07 PM


Are beliefs not the cornerstone, the very basis from which our actions emanate?
No, they aren't.
Oh, I thought this was part of our axiomatic set up.
quote:
jar:
Second, that my beliefs will have had some impacts on my behavior over time.
quote:
AZPaul3:
And, of course, all of us act in accord with our acculturated personality. It cannot be other than that our beliefs guide our actions.
Only through our beliefs can we be confident in the efficacy of a pending action. We don't act without reason and the reasoning we use is dependent on our beliefs.This is before we act. Even a sociopath has a belief in their own superiority to social laws before they act to ignore them.
Was there not some belief that guided the decision to act? Wasn't belief the guide to assessing the efficacy of a range of proposed actions? I see a person's beliefs as the guide, even if subconsciously, to all decision making.
But you're saying otherwise. I'm not seeing it. Please show me.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 12-31-2021 8:07 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 12-31-2021 10:03 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 19 of 54 (890313)
12-31-2021 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nwr
12-31-2021 10:03 PM


But that is very different from saying that they are the basis from which actions emanate.
Yes it is. I tried to make it a bit stronger in my response to him.
A child already has an personality before he acquires language. The personality cannot all be based on beliefs.
Yes, I agree with kids having innate personalities but I disagree with the presumption that values, beliefs, require language in order to be acquired by the rugrat.
Are beliefs synonymous with values? Can we do that?
Maybe I should mention that the beliefs I am speaking of are not limited to religious/secular things but also go to interpersonal relationships and basic self perception.
I cannot say how much personality is innate but the acculturation part (the imparting of beliefs and core values) begins as soon as the snot-nose can absorb the reality around them. They acquire by experiencing and by watching. Experimenting and interacting. Imho, that first bite that solicits a painful bite back is instructive in basic values to an aware child regardless of the language abilities.
Reason does not require belief. We can reason about what we do not believe.
Any kind of reasoning requires an epistemology, does it not? Epistemologies are value-based beliefs in ways of thinking. Certainly any kind of reasoning requires a belief in the epistemological framework that is to be used.
Am I out in left field?
OK I think I got your drift. No, of course not, you do not have to believe in the proposition being argued or reasoned in any way. Such a requirement would be just silly. But the framework you use to argue and reason is based on your epistemological beliefs. So, yes, reason requires belief.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 12-31-2021 10:03 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 12-31-2021 11:46 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 23 of 54 (890324)
01-01-2022 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
01-01-2022 9:36 AM


Re: On nurture from a personal perspective.
I don’t want to soil the beautiful images, both visual and verbal, you have given us, jar.
But, that is kinda what this thread is for.
The first was overt, intentional and almost pervasive.
Yeah, moms are nice comfortable goddesses. Such an upbringing among family, friends, sounds idyllic.
This is where it first got you, you know. Family is usually the strongest of acculturation venues, right?
And you paint such a warm and loving picture.
I’m glad to hear Granny wasn’t chasing you around the house throwing bibles at you.
But I have to ask. What do you mean almost pervasive? Were am I wrong?
From the picture I see you paint, you were in a cocoon of love and family and selected schooling. That was your entire world thru, what, 12 years, yes? Unless you are defining pervasive in some strange alien way I might count that as pervasive without the almost. Pervasive plus, actually. You were buried in religious indoctrination. Ubiquitous. Omnipresent. You didn’t know anything else.
What did the Jesuits say about giving them a boy at 7 and he is theirs forever? Maybe apocryphal … and scary these days.
But there was also a covert and undirected totally pervasive nurture that was filtered by the cumulative effects of the former.
Did that gentle warm cocoon of religious inculcation have an effect on your thoughts and thus filter your actions … for the rest of your life? I should think so.
So did mine, except mine, apparently, was not as pervasive and deep a religious experience as yours. I consider myself lucky. I got away.
When we made the first visit to St. Paul's School for Boys …
Oh good. A reinforcing camp for your first independent years. This is where you coulda, shoulda, woulda broke free except the coulda part was missing. They wouldn't give you any respite in which to challenge the demon.
We are all the product of both nature and nurture but to a great extent each of those is the result of both intentional and unintentional influence.
Yes. Now I can see where your woo comes from and I can see now the bug may be deeper than I had read in you. My perception, anyway.
I think, in my intellectually arrogant and totally bullshit way, I see how your displayed intellect here could have given you rational questions and confirmed doubts yet still be subservient to those nagging … thoughts, feelings … that just won’t go away. You’ve been made to feel inferior. You must be judged. Congratulations, you’re an Episcopalian who got hit with a large dose of catholic guilt.
Your religious zeitgeist may not I like you, but I do, if that helps any.
Edited by AZPaul3, : I forget

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 01-01-2022 9:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 01-01-2022 12:48 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 8:57 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 25 of 54 (890329)
01-01-2022 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nwr
01-01-2022 12:48 PM


Re: On nurture from a personal perspective.
He is a humanist already. Not that far a stretch to go secular. I wonder what it would take to get him to come over to the dark side. Bring Phat with him.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nwr, posted 01-01-2022 12:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 01-01-2022 1:24 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 01-01-2022 1:35 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 29 of 54 (890346)
01-02-2022 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
01-02-2022 8:57 AM


Empiricist Stability
I don't know if you ever read My Belief Statement,
Yeah I went looking at your past stuff but you are a prolific member and I am a lazy sob. If you can point me at it I would love to look.
But I already know you believe. What you believe is interesting to know in itself but is less so than the how and the why.
You don’t think you were cocooned in a religious indoctrination? You think you were allowed to experience other views? You were allowed to explore? Did mom tell you about Mohammad? Did your upbringing involve any other religious training other than talk of familiarity? And yet where was your 8 year-old hinny on every Sunday? Eyeballs deep exclusively in jesus and god.
And at your advanced conditioning boy’s school indoctrination camp, I can imagine both Kant and Nietzsche being considered required study for the cultured young man worthy to be a St. Paul’s alum. Maybe covering Kant for your 1 hour philosophy class one day and Nietzsche for an hour the next. You’ve been exposed to other things. You wrote your paper comparing and contrasting god v no god.
How long did that take? A few days?
But what did you do before and after classes? If your boy’s cage was like most such cages you attended morning or evening or both devotional services. Sing praises to his name and all pray in unison. Steeped in religious ritual. Daily. Not as a study of some foreign philosophy but as a veneration of a non-existent deity. Maybe not so intense at St. Paul's but still a starkly christian environment washing over your mind every day reinforcing the stories and the hymns your mom sang.
You did this every day for all your formative years while neuroplasticity was trying to put your mind together.
You were brainwashed just as assuredly as if you had been placed in a Shia madrasa.
You were allowed to question. Very good. But not too hard. And they apparently quite nicely negated any lingering apostasy that may have crept into your still young thinking. At least for the major tenets if not some the crazier details. Regular church service is good for that.
Jar, as I see, you ended up being exactly the religiously indoctrinated young man they set out to create.
The reason I think it important is that my education shows that it can be done. It is possible to have a religious education that is more than simply my way or the highway.
No, jar. You ended up being exactly the religiously indoctrinated man they wanted. It worked in your case as it has worked in so many others. You believe. You may not be the weak sister that succumbs to the orders of the church but, even in your mind now, jar I can believe that if the church says jump you have to stop and think for a second to overcome feeling compelled to ask how high.
It is good they taught you to think, even if it was within controlled circumstances and over-balanced to the side of woo and fantasy. This is probably a major difference between you and Phat. Phat fell into the fantasy unequipped to question.
But your questioning, as far as it went, imho, has not been total. I imagine, jar, there still is that holy of holies in the deep mysterious tabernacle of your mind where questions are not allowed and belief, fantasy, rules.
The point I'd like to make (and I think it's an important one) is that my religious upbringing and education was what produced not just the ability but the need to question, to look at evidence, to examine reality, to place CONTENT over source, EVIDENCE over belief, REALITY over fantasy.
Emphasize religious upbringing and education. And the religion won out.
Of course you would have had the same strength of intellect and ability without the religious aspect of your training. The addition of religion I don’t think did anything for your abilities. You would still be jar, just without that nagging irritation of an illogical fantasy knocking on your empiricist stability.
It is not a matter that I feel inferior or that I must be judged but rather that judgement is a fact …
And this is where we jump off into religious la-la land. For now, I think I’ll just sit here.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 8:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 1:27 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 31 of 54 (890351)
01-02-2022 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
01-02-2022 1:27 PM


Re: Empiricist Stability
AZPaul3 writes:
You were allowed to question. Very good. But not too hard. And they apparently quite nicely negated any lingering apostasy that may have crept into your still young thinking. At least for the major tenets if not some the crazier details. Regular church service is good for that.
And what evidence do you base that upon?
My analysis goes like this:
You're a believer. I assume from reading this and other of your stuff, that belief came early. Family or school, makes no difference. Throughout all this other training and exposure you still hold to your (admittedly) illogical belief there is a god. But, you're not a weak mind, jar.
I can't empirically show this, of course, but I believe (from experiences with others) that smart guys can overcome illogical beliefs unless they are constantly reinforced by ritual (services) and/or by the iconography, peer pressure and other pressures from the environment. Home with a religious family or attending a religious school I see as strong reinforcing venues. And you were exposed near daily. That is a lot of woo conjuring.
So, yes, whatever apostasy may have entered your mind was effectively countered by something or it would have won the logical battle (like I said you are not weak minded). You were still in the midsts of your reinforcing cocoon. Your family and/or your school hobbled your mind by reinforcing their illogical doctrines.
No matter what other temporary experiences you may have had with any other philosophy, your constant exposure to the one, not as a curiosity study item but enforced in your child's mind as your family's heart-felt view of the world, does not allow you to challenge the major tenets. They remain in your belief.
You ended up being exactly the religiously indoctrinated man they wanted. It worked in your case as it has worked in so many others.
You may well believe that but again, what do you base that upon?
Simple. You believe in an illogical fantasy. Just like they made you.
Are you saying that you do not think individuals should examine ...
No, I just thought that delving into articles of faith could wait until we each are comfortable with the indoctrination piece. But I'll go anywhere you want whenever you want. I'm easy.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 1:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 01-02-2022 4:03 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 4:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 34 of 54 (890355)
01-02-2022 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phat
01-02-2022 4:03 PM


Re: Empiricist Stability
Woo, is just a disingenuous term meaning illogical, non-natural and just plain silly.
Doesn't require any experience other than to think dumb.
The real question in my mind is why you are so anti-theist.
You read, you participated, in the Anti-Theist thread. You should know why I detest the errant, illogical, sloppy and evil thinking that hallmarks all religion. Too easily manipulated and too readily accepted without question theologies have been, and continue to be poison to the human soul.
What good is it for everyone to be on your dark side?
The end of religion. An extended age of human enlightenment. Nirvana. The dark side, Phat, is secular humanism. Everybody needs to walk on the dark side.
Do you really think that human communion will someday lead to a much better world?
No. I think we're fucked. Climate change, the dystopian human reaction and the disastrous effects of these constant wars, will doom humanity. We will be dead, extinct and not missed in the least within 5000 years. Go humans.
I bet you liked star trek!
What have I ever said or done that would make you believe that I could not be enthralled by the society, zeitgeist and technology of the Star Trek universe?
You insult my Roddenberrian sensibilities, sir.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 01-02-2022 4:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 35 of 54 (890356)
01-02-2022 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
01-02-2022 4:41 PM


Re: Empiricist Stability
Again, jar, my major evidence is you are not a stupid man.
You were allowed, so you say, to challenge, to question.
I cannot believe that you did not question so I take as given you did question. You questioned some of the illogical superstitious small craziness of the bible that your intellect rejects. You don't believe these things anymore (talking snakes, world fluds).
Yet with major tenets, like there is a god, I am sure you also questioned but failed to overcome. Why?
If you can successfully discern bullshit in the small stuff then what failed with the more important major tenets? After all they are made of the same stuff: unevidenced fantasy.
Something interfered.
My opinion, you were not allowed to complete your analysis due to the constant insistence that such is true bombarding you in both active and passive ways never allowing the counter argument to mature regardless of your doubts. In other words the religious culture shouted down your doubts. Talking snakes are cool but superfluous. God is too central. The cocoon will not allow you to question too hard and not believe. Constant reinforcement through constant repetition. The power of the repetition of the big lie.
Does this help?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 4:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 6:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 37 of 54 (890359)
01-02-2022 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
01-02-2022 6:36 PM


Re: Empiricist Stability
Because I have never seen or found any evidence that there is not a GOD.
I have never seen or found any evidence that there is not a pink elephant, either.
Of course not. No one can prove a negative. It is not logically possible. The question has no meaning.
Aren't you saying you have never seen or found any evidence that there is a god and your acculturated conditioning fills that void in your knowledge with yes?
As you say there is no evidence. Neither of us can give a statement either way (though I claim there is evidence of no god just to piss off some individuals when I'm feeling ornery, and please don't tell anyone about that. I'll want to use that again).
But you believe. That tells me your default answer to this question despite no evidence is yes. And I think your acculturation, all that time in the cocoon, is the reason you take this illogical stance. You take a logical reasoned stance on the talking snake so we know your brain works.
I have never doubted that is your opinion however so far you have never presented any reasoned argument or evidence to support your opinion.
I can't do any more here. I think you couldn't properly analyse god because the environment in the cocoon would not let you. I can't prove any such thing. Only based on how I perceive the cocoon as you describe the details of your training and the fact that your intellect discerned the bs in the other tenets. That's all I got. Well, familiarity with religious environments and propagating the big lie. That kind of stuff.
And besides, this is opinion and doesn’t need any support. Which is very illogical and, at our age we’re allowed to be illogical whenever and wherever we want. That's what I was told, anyway.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : word evidence to prove - the usual saying


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 01-02-2022 6:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 01-03-2022 9:35 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 39 of 54 (890369)
01-03-2022 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
01-03-2022 9:35 AM


Re: Empiricist Stability
Actually, if you put in the effort, you can find one of my posts here supporting the idea of a talking snake.
Seek and ye shall find.
If I err in representing you and you want to correct me saying your old posts somewhere say otherwise then bring it. I will stand corrected.
If you want to refute my points by reference to your statement of faith long buried in the archives then bring it. As I said I will not challenge any of your articles of faith.
No, I am not going to go through all 33K of your posts looking for your words. If they are important then bring them here. Otherwise we could end this right here.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 01-03-2022 9:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 01-03-2022 12:13 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024