mr2mk1g 10 #276 June 18, 2004 I guess, as it’s a Friday morning and I can’t be bothered to deal with things yet, I’ll deal with the judgement too. The case did NOT consider the actual argument. Please don’t confuse it as having done so. All it said was that the guy could not ask the court to make that call. It was exactly as if one of you people here had brought the case. The court said: “Nice question… but you have no right to ask it. Go away”. There was something called obiter dictum, which is where a judge talks about the subject in general terms. This can be cited in court, (at least in the UK anyway – lawrocket will have to confirm that for the US), but it has little authority. It’s simply like saying to the judge “so and so has this opinion”. The judge has the right to say, “that’s nice… I don’t”. This is very different from saying to the judge “in the case of A v. B the Supreme Court decided that you MUST do this…” The judge would then be bound to do as the Supreme Court did and has no discretion in the matter. In this instance the Supreme Court did not decide anything as to the constitutional correctness of the pledge of allegiance. This case decided nothing other than the question of whether or not the father could bring the case… that in its self should have already have been established principal. If you want to cite it as a victory you still have the obiter dictum, the significance of which is not to be overlooked. But do not fool yourself into believing that any real legal decision was made on the subject. The constitutional correctness of the pledge is still undecided… which as I highlighted in my last post, means it is currently constitutional but it may subsequently be decided that it has always been unconstitutional. We can argue till the cows come home as to whether or not it is constitutional. The difference is, that none of our opinions actually count in the scheme of things. Not till one of us is appointed to the Supreme Court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #277 June 18, 2004 QuoteYou're being derogatory by saying that "he hears voices in his head" simply because you despise religion and religious people. I don't despise religion or religious people. I despise some things that have been done in the name of religion, and despise people who try to force others to adhere to their agenda. That's not a blanket statement against religion or religious people, there are extremists in that group just like any other. As far as hearing god speak to you. Since I'm of the opinion that god is a figment of people's imaginations, then if they are talking to an imaginary figure in their head, what's the difference between that and schizophrenia? And I didn't compare GWB to Koresh, he's not that extreme. I compared Ashcroft to Koresh, he IS that extreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #278 June 18, 2004 QuoteAs far as hearing god speak to you. Since I'm of the opinion that god is a figment of people's imaginations, then if they are talking to an imaginary figure in their head, what's the difference between that and schizophrenia? I guess ~85% of the US population who claim a religious association with that of Christianity are mostly schizophrenic and you guys are the only normal people in the mix. Go figure. QuoteAnd I didn't compare GWB to Koresh, he's not that extreme. I compared Ashcroft to Koresh, he IS that extreme. An equally irrational and greatly exagerated association. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #279 June 18, 2004 Quote guess ~85% of the US population who claim a religious association with that of Christianity are mostly schizophrenic and you guys are the only normal people in the mix. Of those 85%, how many claim to hear the voice of god in their head and have conversations with him where he answers back? I know a whole lot of Christians who don't make that claim. Why? Because they are sane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #280 June 18, 2004 QuoteIt reads better poetically (diagram the meter yourself before you argue "not IMO" without recognizing there is more to poetry than if you 'like' it) without the phrase "under God" and honestly, applying the preposition 'under' to the 'person' of 'God', is meaningless. Oh...well....If it's more "poetic" without like you say, then we should definitely change it. We'd sure want everybody, across the board, to "feel" as good about it as possible when they say it. Maybe, so they could all then sing it at Christmas time, or the day when you make it a point to protest religion, or when you worship your cat, or whenever. Quoteits rather peculiar that of the people who do recognize Divinity "God" in its myriad of forms, only the Christians are screaming about making school children swear allegiance (pray essentially) to her as well as country every morning before class. Again, nobody is making anyone, including school children anymore, say the pledge of allegiance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #281 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuote I'm just saying what is and what isn't. that is not a right granted to you until you become a member of the US Supreme Court. I didn't say right or wrong. Just what is and is not. The weather happens to be mostly cloudy with scattered thunderstorms right now in my area. Tomorrow is supposed to be just scattered thunderstorms but we'll have to see. The Pledge with "Under God", as it stands now, is in fact Constititional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,174 #282 June 18, 2004 QuoteIf it's more "poetic" without like you say, then we should definitely change it. That would be change it back to how it was written. Kind of like the placing of clothing on nude statues, the addition of "under God" is a change to the original, in an attempt to "guide" the people to a thought set that is desired to be mainstream by the changers. The whole "If you make them say it maybe they'll start believing it" thing. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #283 June 18, 2004 Quotedo you really want to get into a psychological analysis of your prophets? how about your God based on the writings of your prophets? Why, are you also a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist in addition to being a Field Engineer? QuoteMany many pious men have been jailed, persecuted, tortured and killed by those who called them insane. Ok…I agree. Many renowned scientists have been done the same. That didn’t mean that they were. QuoteWho were they, and who are you? To tell anyone what form the voice of God appears to them?? I believe what I said earlier to PeacefulJeffrey was: Quote I fully believe that God answers prayers. Answers come differently for different people. I've had some answered. Not verbally like you'd talk on the telephone but answered nonetheless. I don't discount what God can do otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #284 June 18, 2004 QuoteThe answer, of course, is found in the christains' need to control everyone else and force them to swear allegiance to their god. PeacefulJeffrey……you will obey what Christians everywhere are trying to make you do……you will pray to Jesus and say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety with reverence….you will also go to Church and learn more about the Bible and what Christianity is all about….PeacefulJeffrey……you will conform to the Christians who are trying to control you and everything around you….. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #285 June 18, 2004 QuoteWhen someone who has the proper standing finally brings it to the Supreme Court, if that person wins and the supremes find it unconstitutional, will you: a) accept their decision and grant its validity Yes Quoteor b) claim that their finding is in error and there really is nothing in the constitution to prohibit reference to god? I’ll personally continue to say it as I feel appropriate but I wouldn’t expect anyone else to or for it to be printed or said officially in any other way except for what was decided to be Constitutional. QuoteI mean, I will tell you right now that if the supreme court were to rule on the 2nd Amendment and say that it does not guarantee a personal right but a "collective" right, I would be among the first to say that the ruling was erroneous and they were misreading what they were ruling on. So weigh in on this hypothetical. So would I. I don’t see this as being that extreme, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #286 June 18, 2004 QuoteBut then, according to what I believe, neither will you know god. So then it comes down to "whose beliefs will actually bear out as true?" Ok QuoteBut as far as "you can only criticize what you don't understand" -- that's an utter fallacy. On what basis do you make that statement? Your own words: Quote“(As I do not believer there is a god to be giving answers, I have to believe that those who think they "hear" answers are loony.)” “They have a word for people like that: nuts.” QuoteOne can't criticize something that one DOES understand? Of course. QuoteI thought that criticism was made MORE valid if the criticizer understood the subject matter. It does. QuoteWhat if someone was watching skydivers in a swoop competition? Only someone who doesn't understand swooping can judge them and criticize them? Please make some sense out of your statement for me. He/she could but it wouldn’t hold much validity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #287 June 18, 2004 its not about feeling 'good', its about what it is and what the original intent behind it was when it was recognized as an official pledge. God in any form had nothing to do with that intent. Christian religious zealots lobbied and had it changed it at a time when the vast majority of the public was not going to raise their hands and say "this is wrong" for fear of persecution by religious zealots in Congress at the time, who were persecuting anything “un-American” (by their very narrow definition of what “American” was) QuoteAgain, nobody is making anyone, including school children anymore, say the pledge of allegiance. they absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. so you've got no issues with a teacher substituting any number of the wide variety of names God has been called by mankind? as BillVon expressed, even "under Satan" should be acceptable to you (as it is a recognized religion) after all, your children dont have to say it....they just have to hear everyone else say it everyday and wonder why daddy tells them everyone else is wrong.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #288 June 18, 2004 QuoteGood point, actually. As long as we make it clear that kids don't have to say it, and that saying it does not indicate allegiance any more than not saying it does - I would agree with you. Keep it as it is, and if you don't like it, don't say it or say your own pledge. It diminishes the pledge a bit but solves the problem. So…we need to give the kids some kind of disclaimer before the Pledge. Kind of like requiring Miranda Rights is given when someone is arrested. QuoteOf course, you then have to be OK with a teacher at your kid's school reciting it to the class with "under Allah" if they so choose. Again, no problem since your child doesn't have to say it. Everyone's happy. If it’s a public school and they’re going to officially say the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d think it would have to be the one recognized by the State and the US Government. Of course, it isn’t required that you say it. Or, you could, yourself, say it with “Under the tree God if you wanted to. Officially, however, the Pledge would have to be official. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #289 June 18, 2004 QuoteOf those 85%, how many claim to hear the voice of god in their head and have conversations with him where he answers back? I know a whole lot of Christians who don't make that claim. Why? Because they are sane. Seriously dude...are you just misconstruing and exaggerating this or did Aschcroft or anyone else you're talking about actually say that he talked to God as if I was talking to you face to face (verbally)? He might have said God spoke to him but God does, in fact, speak to people in different ways. In Biblical times, there were instances where God vocally spoke to his people. Don't intentionally paint someone as insane just because you don't believe or agree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #290 June 18, 2004 QuoteOfficially, however, the Pledge would have to be official. And that is why officially, the mention of God should be taken out. Because that is the only way to include ALL Americans. If some subset wants to unofficially add under god to it, feel free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #291 June 18, 2004 That would be change it back to how it was written. Kind of like the placing of clothing on nude statues, the addition of "under God" is a change to the original, in an attempt to "guide" the people to a thought set that is desired to be mainstream by the changers. Kind of like the Amendments to the Constitution. QuoteThe whole "If you make them say it maybe they'll start believing it" thing. I don't think that's the intent. It's just the acknowledgement of God. Not an attempt at evangelism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #287 June 18, 2004 its not about feeling 'good', its about what it is and what the original intent behind it was when it was recognized as an official pledge. God in any form had nothing to do with that intent. Christian religious zealots lobbied and had it changed it at a time when the vast majority of the public was not going to raise their hands and say "this is wrong" for fear of persecution by religious zealots in Congress at the time, who were persecuting anything “un-American” (by their very narrow definition of what “American” was) QuoteAgain, nobody is making anyone, including school children anymore, say the pledge of allegiance. they absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. so you've got no issues with a teacher substituting any number of the wide variety of names God has been called by mankind? as BillVon expressed, even "under Satan" should be acceptable to you (as it is a recognized religion) after all, your children dont have to say it....they just have to hear everyone else say it everyday and wonder why daddy tells them everyone else is wrong.....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #288 June 18, 2004 QuoteGood point, actually. As long as we make it clear that kids don't have to say it, and that saying it does not indicate allegiance any more than not saying it does - I would agree with you. Keep it as it is, and if you don't like it, don't say it or say your own pledge. It diminishes the pledge a bit but solves the problem. So…we need to give the kids some kind of disclaimer before the Pledge. Kind of like requiring Miranda Rights is given when someone is arrested. QuoteOf course, you then have to be OK with a teacher at your kid's school reciting it to the class with "under Allah" if they so choose. Again, no problem since your child doesn't have to say it. Everyone's happy. If it’s a public school and they’re going to officially say the Pledge of Allegiance, I’d think it would have to be the one recognized by the State and the US Government. Of course, it isn’t required that you say it. Or, you could, yourself, say it with “Under the tree God if you wanted to. Officially, however, the Pledge would have to be official. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #289 June 18, 2004 QuoteOf those 85%, how many claim to hear the voice of god in their head and have conversations with him where he answers back? I know a whole lot of Christians who don't make that claim. Why? Because they are sane. Seriously dude...are you just misconstruing and exaggerating this or did Aschcroft or anyone else you're talking about actually say that he talked to God as if I was talking to you face to face (verbally)? He might have said God spoke to him but God does, in fact, speak to people in different ways. In Biblical times, there were instances where God vocally spoke to his people. Don't intentionally paint someone as insane just because you don't believe or agree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #290 June 18, 2004 QuoteOfficially, however, the Pledge would have to be official. And that is why officially, the mention of God should be taken out. Because that is the only way to include ALL Americans. If some subset wants to unofficially add under god to it, feel free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #291 June 18, 2004 That would be change it back to how it was written. Kind of like the placing of clothing on nude statues, the addition of "under God" is a change to the original, in an attempt to "guide" the people to a thought set that is desired to be mainstream by the changers. Kind of like the Amendments to the Constitution. QuoteThe whole "If you make them say it maybe they'll start believing it" thing. I don't think that's the intent. It's just the acknowledgement of God. Not an attempt at evangelism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #292 June 18, 2004 Quotethey absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. Great....frustration to the point of personal attacks....I guess it's working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #293 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuotedo you really want to get into a psychological analysis of your prophets? how about your God based on the writings of your prophets? Quote Why, are you also a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist in addition to being a Field Engineer? no but i know several, have dabbled in it (there are advantages to liberal arts educational institutions) find what is reveals about motivations rather interesting, and it is a fairly well researched and documented literary analysis technique..but the majority of Christians start frothing at the mouth when you subject their literature and its supposed writers to the same level and types of criticisms as all other literary figures. This often includes an analysis to the writers personality (FBI/CIA uses these techniques all the time to profile solely on a subjects written words) based on their writing style, word usage, source material etc...it is also used to 'profile' the characters of pure literary figures, ie the character of God and Christ.... do you realize there are 6 distinct characters of God in your Bible? OT & NT? seems your God has some issues with schizophrenia as well.. QuoteMany many pious men have been jailed, persecuted, tortured and killed by those who called them insane. Ok…I agree. Many renowned scientists have been done the same. That didn’t mean that they were. QuoteWho were they, and who are you? To tell anyone what form the voice of God appears to them?? I believe what I said earlier to PeacefulJeffrey was: Quote I fully believe that God answers prayers. Answers come differently for different people. I've had some answered. Not verbally like you'd talk on the telephone but answered nonetheless. I don't discount what God can do otherwise. My question still stands. Who are you to say to anyone how God speaks to them?? Society has a lovely way of labeling those who don’t ‘fit’ insane, and lock them away to keep their ideas from spreading to its impressionable youth…your seem just as ready to label anyone who doesn’t think and feel God in the manner you perceive him to be insane as well..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #294 June 18, 2004 Bush has stated on many occasions that he has conferred with God and that God has told him that his way was the right way. It's a common trait among evangelical christians to speak to god about specific decisions and in almost all cases, "miraculously", the decision they had made before speaking with god gets endorsed by him. Must be "blessed" to be right about god's will so much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #295 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuotethey absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. Great....frustration to the point of personal attacks....I guess it's working. ok i did put a double negative in my original post, but there is no frustration at all, should be "if you think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social/educational process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality" do you think peer pressure plays no part of the educational process? to do so is ignorant. fact, not an attack.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,174 #296 June 18, 2004 QuoteKind of like the Amendments to the Constitution. Point taken. I disagree, but I see what you're saying. QuoteI don't think that's the intent. It's just the acknowledgement of God. Not an attempt at evangelism. Why is it OK to make people who don't acknowledge a deity by the name of God do so in a national pledge? Especially when there is a strong tradition of the government, as an entity, not endorsing a particular religion? It's naive to say that no one is forced to say the Pledge; children, in class, with all their peers, have to say it unless they're extremely strong-minded. Otherwise there are all the conversations and rumors afterwards. Adults, too. Especially when folks will say that anyone who doesn't toe the patriotic line is a traitor . Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #297 June 18, 2004 First off - guys, do you really believe you are going to win an argument by attacking the others religious beliefs? It doesn’t work like that. Quit calling each other fruit loops cos they either do or do not believe that God speaks to people. I believe he doesnt... but then I can't exactly prove that... so I can't really call someone nuts when they believe he does. That's kinda the point of a belief. QuoteIt's just the acknowledgement of God The problem only arises with those who do not wish to acknowledge God. The its suddenly not just the acknowledgement of God, it's suddenly a very big thing to them. Reverse the tables and think how you might feel. You obviously hold Christianity very dear to yourself, and I respect that. Lets create an imagineary country. What if you lived in "Bobland" where you were free to practice any religion and you exercise that freedom by choosing to be a Christian. Now Bobland is a good country that encourages it's citizens to be free, so everyone’s fine with your choice to be a Christian. But in Bobland every morning all your friends and colleagues and the teachers of your children get up and pledge to the flag of Bobland that God does not exist and that Bobland exists beyond the control of any God. (as close to the opposit of "under God" that I could come up with) Would you be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable that every morning your children hear that God does not exist and that moreover, cannot hear their prayers in their own country, nor help them in their time of need? Might they start to believe that even though you tell them otherwise, even though their beliefs tell them otherwise? They are only children after all. What the lord giveth, the lord taketh away. In Bobland you're given religious freedom... and yet at the same time the government makes it very difficult for you to practice that freedom. Does that sound at all like "the American way"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #298 June 18, 2004 Not quitting...Just gotta leave right now....be back later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #299 June 18, 2004 QuoteThere was something called obiter dictum, which is where a judge talks about the subject in general terms. This can be cited in court, (at least in the UK anyway – lawrocket will have to confirm that for the US), but it has little authority. It’s simply like saying to the judge “so and so has this opinion”. The judge has the right to say, “that’s nice… I don’t”. This is very different from saying to the judge “in the case of A v. B the Supreme Court decided that you MUST do this…” The judge would then be bound to do as the Supreme Court did and has no discretion in the matter. I guess that's one of the ideas we kept from England. You are correct. We just call it dicta. It can be cited, has little actual authority, but is persuasive. But, as I said before, Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review of laws for Constitutionality, established it in dicta. It is the foundation of what the Supreme Court does today. Dicta can be very powerful if used the right way. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #300 June 18, 2004 Quoteno but i know several, have dabbled in it (there are advantages to liberal arts educational institutions) find what is reveals about motivations rather interesting, and it is a fairly well researched and documented literary analysis technique..but the majority of Christians start frothing at the mouth when you subject their literature and its supposed writers to the same level and types of criticisms as all other literary figures. This often includes an analysis to the writers personality (FBI/CIA uses these techniques all the time to profile solely on a subjects written words) based on their writing style, word usage, source material etc...it is also used to 'profile' the characters of pure literary figures, ie the character of God and Christ.... do you realize there are 6 distinct characters of God in your Bible? OT & NT? seems your God has some issues with schizophrenia as well.. I’d be interested in hearing from a reputable source that knows what the hell he/she’s talking about on the subject. I don’t think you qualify having taken some undergraduate (elective?) courses at a “liberal arts” institution. QuoteMy question still stands. Who are you to say to anyone how God speaks to them?? I think what I was trying to say in my “re-quote” was exactly what I’m trying to say to you now. I’m not saying I’m anyone who can say how God talks or communicates to people. I just said that he does so in different ways. I meant exactly what you said. Who’s to say? QuoteSociety has a lovely way of labeling those who don’t ‘fit’ insane, and lock them away to keep their ideas from spreading to its impressionable youth…your seem just as ready to label anyone who doesn’t think and feel God in the manner you perceive him to be insane as well.. I don’t believe I ever did that. If you can find that I did, please quote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 12 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #299 June 18, 2004 QuoteThere was something called obiter dictum, which is where a judge talks about the subject in general terms. This can be cited in court, (at least in the UK anyway – lawrocket will have to confirm that for the US), but it has little authority. It’s simply like saying to the judge “so and so has this opinion”. The judge has the right to say, “that’s nice… I don’t”. This is very different from saying to the judge “in the case of A v. B the Supreme Court decided that you MUST do this…” The judge would then be bound to do as the Supreme Court did and has no discretion in the matter. I guess that's one of the ideas we kept from England. You are correct. We just call it dicta. It can be cited, has little actual authority, but is persuasive. But, as I said before, Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review of laws for Constitutionality, established it in dicta. It is the foundation of what the Supreme Court does today. Dicta can be very powerful if used the right way. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #300 June 18, 2004 Quoteno but i know several, have dabbled in it (there are advantages to liberal arts educational institutions) find what is reveals about motivations rather interesting, and it is a fairly well researched and documented literary analysis technique..but the majority of Christians start frothing at the mouth when you subject their literature and its supposed writers to the same level and types of criticisms as all other literary figures. This often includes an analysis to the writers personality (FBI/CIA uses these techniques all the time to profile solely on a subjects written words) based on their writing style, word usage, source material etc...it is also used to 'profile' the characters of pure literary figures, ie the character of God and Christ.... do you realize there are 6 distinct characters of God in your Bible? OT & NT? seems your God has some issues with schizophrenia as well.. I’d be interested in hearing from a reputable source that knows what the hell he/she’s talking about on the subject. I don’t think you qualify having taken some undergraduate (elective?) courses at a “liberal arts” institution. QuoteMy question still stands. Who are you to say to anyone how God speaks to them?? I think what I was trying to say in my “re-quote” was exactly what I’m trying to say to you now. I’m not saying I’m anyone who can say how God talks or communicates to people. I just said that he does so in different ways. I meant exactly what you said. Who’s to say? QuoteSociety has a lovely way of labeling those who don’t ‘fit’ insane, and lock them away to keep their ideas from spreading to its impressionable youth…your seem just as ready to label anyone who doesn’t think and feel God in the manner you perceive him to be insane as well.. I don’t believe I ever did that. If you can find that I did, please quote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
