|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2006 : 16:20:21
|
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Use the search links of the CSICOP and the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation [dedicated to atheistic skepticism] for Buddhism and see if you can come up with more than the fingers of one hand findings of writings critical of Buddhism.
I asked once Pigliucci by email why? He said that it's because Buddhism and Buddhists don't antagonize the atheistic communities and their analogue groups.
Well, that is interesting, and as a matter of fact I have seen many who are out and out against theism and religion in general take up Buddhism, saying that it is not contrary if not in consonance with secular atheistic philosophies, including scientific skepticism.
First, is it true that the atheists communities and kindred groups treat Buddhism with kids' gloves?
Second, why? is it because Skepticism and Buddhism are compatible or not incompatible?
Pachomius
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 17:30:51 [Permalink]
|
I don't think it is treating Buddhism with kid's gloves at all. Buddhism just happens to not have any threatening doctrines. Sure reincarnation and the soul ect. is irrational but not threatening by any means. You may as well question why there is not a ton of articles debunking the time cube theory, http://www.timecube.com/. It simply is not a threat to anything and all of the irrational tenets are covered in the threatening religion's criticisms.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 20:40:07 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, Pachomius!
I certainly dislike irrational belief of every kind. But as a practical matter, it makes more sense to first "go after" those that are attacking society by trying to impose their superstitions upon the world at large. Here in the US, that mainly describes the Fundamentalists, who seen bent upon imposing their vision of God's Law on everyone else.
I think most secular humanists see things similarly. One needs to prioritize. While supporting critical thinking in general, we really need to spend a great deal of our time defending against aggressive theocrats, not going out to smack down just every spiritual belief that exists. I'm sure that if Buddhists (or Wiccans, for that matter, fill in the blank) were the main force in trying to impose a theocracy, you'd see skeptics taking them on a lot more.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2006 : 22:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Depends on the kind of Buddhism. The chanters will tend to have skepticism rained down upon them, especially the ones that I ran into decades ago, who definitely wanted cash to help a person get "enlightenment."
But most of the time, well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Most Buddhists don't proselytize, nor do they make promises about the reward you'll reap if you'd just believe. Most of 'em are just content to live their lives as Buddha taught and not bug anyone else about it.
You'll notice, of course, that crop circles, UFOs, alternative medicine, and a zillion other things we skeptics regularly engage all have people screaming from the hillsides that there's some sort of suppression of information (usually by the government), and that if people will only believe, then their lives will somehow be better or at least safer. It isn't Joe Schmoe who lives his life quietly - but believes that reptillian shape-changers are running the government - who receives our collective ire, it is instead David Icke, who makes a lot of money selling books and gewgaws that try to convince people that reptillian shape-changers are running the government who gets lambasted.
Again: the squeaky wheel. (And/or, as in that last case, the wheel raking in the cash.)
Plus, some forms of Buddhism are just plain confusing, so it's hard to know where to begin. How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb? One fake Zen answer is "two, one to change the lightbulb and one not to change the lightbulb," but that's street-corner Zen, and not the hardcore stuff. Another fake Zen answer is "a suffusion of yellow," which tries to be "Zen" by being confusing, but it's so in-your-face confusing that it blows it as satire. The real Zen answer is "four, one to change the lightbulb." Where does one start in criticizing such a belief system?
...
So, didja hear about the Zen Master who walked up to the hotdog vendor and said, "make me one with everything?" [rimshot]
(But wait, there's more!) So the vendor gives the Master a dog (with everything), and says, "that'll be two bucks." The Master hands over a five, which the vendor puts in his pocket and wordlessly goes back to cleaning his stand and selling dogs to other customers. After a couple of tense minutes, the Master tugs on the vendor's sleeve, and says, "what about my change?" The vendor gets a wise grin on his face and says, "ah, my brother, change must come from within." [rimshot] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 08:09:41 [Permalink]
|
Personally, I try to follow the Buddhist doctrines.
Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, karma, mystical energies, or anything like that. I am skeptical of it as much as I'm skeptical of the whole Bible business we love.
Yet, one of the major things to try to follow the Buddhist doctrines is that they do not depend on mysticism to work. There is no "do this or go to hell". There is no God to be whiny about, only you. It's mostly "do this, it's the suggested path, or at least try to do this and you'll feel happier."
I happen to agree with their doctrines/teaching (minus the supernatural). I happen to believe (on the non-faith sense of 'believe') they make sense.
Sure, a lot of stuff is coated in mysticism, and the several variations make it harder to understand it (just as with every popular religion), and certainly there are good things about Christianism and Islamism as well, and Hinduism. I just, personally, happen to agree and like Buddhism more than those ones.
I just like it. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 12/02/2006 08:13:44 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2006 : 09:02:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I have been getting the impression from skeptics' websites that all kinds of people who are supposedly intellectuals or rationalists or skeptics or atheists or against religions are treating Buddhism with kids' gloves.
Is that true? is that a fact?
Are you simply looking for a fight?
If here are principles of Buddhism that you feel cry out for critical rebuke, do so. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 17:57:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Personally, I try to follow the Buddhist doctrines.
Personally, I don't believe in reincarnation, karma, mystical energies, or anything like that. I am skeptical of it as much as I'm skeptical of the whole Bible business we love.
Yet, one of the major things to try to follow the Buddhist doctrines is that they do not depend on mysticism to work. There is no "do this or go to hell". There is no God to be whiny about, only you. It's mostly "do this, it's the suggested path, or at least try to do this and you'll feel happier."
I happen to agree with their doctrines/teaching (minus the supernatural). I happen to believe (on the non-faith sense of 'believe') they make sense.
Sure, a lot of stuff is coated in mysticism, and the several variations make it harder to understand it (just as with every popular religion), and certainly there are good things about Christianism and Islamism as well, and Hinduism. I just, personally, happen to agree and like Buddhism more than those ones.
I just like it.
I just like it. --Siberia
You see, I have been thinking that rational skepticism is the advocacy for intelligent people to take up who want mankind to know what are facts and what are non-facts.
Now, Buddhism happens to be in my impression full of non-facts.
That is why I am convinced that there is essential incompatibility between rational skepticism and Buddhism.
By way of analogy: of course, we know that smoking is dangerous to your health, and therefore there is essential incompatibility between a healthy lifestyle and smoking.
Just the same some people who know about the dangers to health of smoking smoke just the same, because they either don't give a care about their health -- even ;hough they are lessening the number of years to their life and making their life less livable; and also very deplorable as well: costing society or the government or the citizenry a lot of money once they get sick from smoking (moreover, they are adding to the bane unfair to bystanders of indirect smoking which is as bad as oneself smoking); or they just want to indulge in smoking as a luxury however dangerous to health.
Buddhism is as dangerous to rational skepticism as smoking is dangerous to health, specially since as the writer of the quoted post tells us it has good things to offer.
Dangerous to rational skepticism or the advocay of knowledge by facts and evidence and logic, is that in the West Buddhism seems to have found many volunteer or even paid-up PR practitioners to make it appear to prospective converts that Buddhism is rational, is science based, is without illogical myths and superstitions -- quite the exact opposite.
Let me quote to you these excerpts taken from the preamble of the website E-Sangha Buddhism Portal: [Texts in italics are from yours truly, Pachomius.]
quote:
Buddhism Portal E-Sangha
http://www.e-sangha.com/
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. - Albert Einstein
False quotation, Einstein never said such a thing about Buddhism; but this citation has been produced and reproduced in commendation to the endorsement by Einstein and presumably people like Einstein for Buddhism.
----------------------
Buddhism is an ancient tradition, a spiritual path, which was discovered nearly two thousand six hundred years ago by the great sage, Buddha Shakyamuni. He was born circa 563 BC in Lumbini which is in modern-day Nepal. At the age of 29, he left his wife, child and political involvements in order to seek truth. It was an accepted practice at the time for some men to leave their family and lead the life of an ascetic. He studied Brahmanism, but ultimately rejected it. In 535 BC, he attained enlightenment and assumed the title Buddha (one who has awakened). Due to the commitment and dedication of devout Buddhists, this gentle religion has grown in the present world un-marred by any political or religious fervours which so many other traditions have suffered from in the past.
discovered -- wrong discovery, never established by facts, evidence, and logic.
enlightenment -- this means knowledge by meditation, not by attending to facts, evidence, and and logic; there are as many entlightenments as there are people given to meditation for [sic] enlightenment. Who says Gautama was enlightened? He said so, and his disciples said so on his word.
unmarred by political or religious fervours -- not true, it has always been most fiercely competitive with other religions for influence with princes; and it survived owing to patronage by emperors and kings and princes -- because emperors, kings, and princes saw in Buddhism a most convenient and effective tool to keep people subdued and subservient to themselves.
-------------------
[Read the rest of the preamble.]
I will continue with my commentaries on the preamble of the website E-Sangha Buddhism Portal.
No, I am not into a fight with Buddhism and Buddhist, except that I am amazed dismally that intellectuals or supposedly members of the intelligentsia of the West can swallow hook, line, and sinker, Buddhism; but the way I see it, only after closing both eyes to the true Buddhism as it is really preached and practiced and maintained in the lands of the Far East which live under Buddhism as their traditional and national religions.
My contention is that whatever boons Buddhism engenders in the heart and mind of a Westerner, these boons can be achieved without Buddhism but by just cultivating the best rational skepticism can offer in the way of elevating man's heart and mind to levels which we might call transcending the purely materialistic and animalistic (no offense intended to animals, please) urges in crude man -- and quicker, purer, and more solid than with Buddhism.
Pachomius
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 19:22:06 [Permalink]
|
Well firstly, Siberia enjoys the psychological components of the Buddhist teachings. You seem to be complaining that the statement "Feeling happier makes you happy." is unsubstantiated so no one should feel happy.
Second, you have not shown where the danger is. What [besides the irrational stuff we all know about] is the danger? As for the real Buddhism... uh... who cares. Do we tell people that since Christians follow the golden rule intellectuals shouldn't?
Your smoking analogy is not right on par. Are you saying that enlightenment is dangerous because it does not come from factual assesment? Actually, enlightenment or a flash bulb scenario is the product of your brain cranking away whilst you are unaware. Of course, this is taking in account all of the previously assimilated information you have gathered. Acting on this enlightenment without verification is not suggested, obviously, but people who think critically can figure this out. That is the advantage of learning critical thinking.
quote:
unmarred by political or religious fervours -- not true, it has always been most fiercely competitive with other religions for influence with princes; and it survived owing to patronage by emperors and kings and princes -- because emperors, kings, and princes saw in Buddhism a most convenient and effective tool to keep people subdued and subservient to themselves.
Can you give some references? In any case, that is not important. Most skeptics (by definition) are skeptical of Buddhism and take only what they find useful. Hell, the west molest everything to their advantage anyway, why should this be any different.
quote:
My contention is that whatever boons Buddhism engenders in the heart and mind of a Westerner, these boons can be achieved without Buddhism but by just cultivating the best rational skepticism can offer in the way of elevating man's heart and mind to levels which we might call transcending the purely materialistic and animalistic (no offense intended to animals, please) urges in crude man -- and quicker, purer, and more solid than with Buddhism.
In effect, this is what the western makeover does to everything. But this is an evolutionary and slow progression. People are not rational. I know it is sad, but true. Man is an animal and runs off of emotion. Simply telling people that they should take the rational approach takes away the magick. True enough that the knowledge we gain can better our understanding of how and why things work, but the average person does not care about taking away the magick. Tell your average fellow that he does not love his girlfriend and is merely a victim of chemical control his brain induces that will fades as the newness fades in order to incourage diversity in the gene pool, and he will not be as grateful as you might think. Convince your next date that the fairytale of love is bullshit and see how quick you get into the sack. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 20:56:40 [Permalink]
|
And we see that Pachomius really is here to start a fight, first by ignoring the answers to his/her primary question (no, Buddhism is not treated with kid gloves by skeptics), and (I just realized) by answering his/her own first question positively in the OP by asking the second question, and now by ignoring most of what Siberia had to say and tearing into the E-Sangha Buddhism Portal as if she had mentioned it as some sort of Buddhist online Vatican.
(Wow. I mean, if I wanted to learn about Buddhism, and so Googled that word, E-Sangha appears 91st in the list of results - it'd probably take me weeks or months to even look at it, as the more-popular links would have led me to a lot of books to read to really get a grasp of the subject. Obviously, we're starting with a real softball here.)
Why not take on Buddhism itself, rather than some B-list website's introduction? Why not show that three of the four "Noble Truths" are on shaky logical ground (the first being nothing more than a definition)? Why not show that six of the "Noble Eightfold Path" are decent, ethical goals that everyone should strive towards (even Christians and Muslims), and the other two are of no consequence to those who aren't interested in Buddhism's mysticism? Why not actually strive towards what you contend, Pachomius, instead of dancing around pointing out false quotes and lies about history? Those aren't even tenets of Buddhism to begin with. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 21:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Tag Team, off the ropes. To be funny here is a philisophical (non scientific really) argument to Nirodha. To allieviate suffering one must give away what we crave, indeed the cravings themselves. Death is suffering as is birth (Dukkha) and to release it (life, birth, death) we will cause it.
Of course, I can beat my own stupidity, as life as a craving creates a fear of death, release the fear and thus death's power for creating suffering. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 12/03/2006 21:27:23 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2006 : 23:34:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Of course, I can beat my own stupidity, as life as a craving creates a fear of death, release the fear and thus death's power for creating suffering.
To me, that was always the Catch-22 of Buddism. Yeah, if you eliminate desire, you eliminate suffering. But who wants to go through life dead to feeling? Like, "oh, grandma died? Whatever. I don't care.  ."
Taken in small doses, it's an ok philosophy. Don't get too hung up on possessions. Don't stress over things you can't control. Take a moment to appreciate what you have and be in the moment. All well and good, and pretty common sense stuff when you think about it.
However, like any religion, it can be taken too far. And the more mystical stuff like karma, reincarnation, or the zen of living a suffering-free life of impoverishment is pretty much BS. At that point it becomes, like any faith, merely an escape from reality. A way to insulate your psyche from the world. And like any faith, I won't say it isn't the path to "happiness," I'll only note that that happiness does not come without a heavy cost.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/03/2006 23:36:15 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 14:35:39 [Permalink]
|
| No doubt as a philosophy it has its share of problems. You gotta take the good and remove the bad. Like you said HH, its all about sacrificing and paying the cost of happiness in order to get the most joy for the work. If Buddhism works for creating happiness in someone its fine by me, so long as he does not try and base his decisions purely on what makes him happy or try and convert me. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 16:01:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Of course, I can beat my own stupidity, as life as a craving creates a fear of death, release the fear and thus death's power for creating suffering.
To me, that was always the Catch-22 of Buddism. Yeah, if you eliminate desire, you eliminate suffering. But who wants to go through life dead to feeling? Like, "oh, grandma died? Whatever. I don't care. ."
Taken in small doses, it's an ok philosophy. Don't get too hung up on possessions. Don't stress over things you can't control. Take a moment to appreciate what you have and be in the moment. All well and good, and pretty common sense stuff when you think about it.
However, like any religion, it can be taken too far. And the more mystical stuff like karma, reincarnation, or the zen of living a suffering-free life of impoverishment is pretty much BS. At that point it becomes, like any faith, merely an escape from reality. A way to insulate your psyche from the world. And like any faith, I won't say it isn't the path to "happiness," I'll only note that that happiness does not come without a heavy cost.
Which is precisely what I try to do as a mock-Buddhist; I try to weed out the bad (the woo woo, the extremes) and keep the good. I happen to agree craving leads to suffering. I try to 'purify' myself, as the eightfold path says (God-less, faith-less, at least), because I think it makes me happier. I like it better than other religions - but yeah, I'm well aware it can be dangerous to skepticism (and overall sanity) when taken to extremes.
And, after all, try to follow that quote in my signature. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 12/04/2006 16:02:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:20:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
I happen to agree craving leads to suffering.
Every time I see that bit of Buddhism, I can't help but remember a depressed Marge Simpson's advice to her children to help them avoid disappointment: "lower your expectations until they are already met."
(Paraphrased from memory.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pachomius
BANNED
62 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 18:50:41 [Permalink]
|
More commentaries on the preamble of E-Sangha Buddhism Portal
http://www.e-sangha.com/[
quote:
Buddhism is a spiritually established path where one is able to learn about their true nature and come to a deep understanding of their inner self. This in turn brings inner peace for oneself. All said, real peace - be it personal, family or the world - ultimately begins with the individual
inner peace -- What kind of peace is inner peace of the Buddhists? The ideal life of the Buddhists is isolation in a sangha (read that monastery), without home and family and career and the challenges of normal and everyday life, cultivating instead emptiness by meditating on emptiness. That is more like being awarded the degree of R.I.P. in the campus of the cemetery where there is peace, not only inner for those in slumber there but also outer.
quote:
E-Sangha's main objective is to provide those who are interested in learning more about Buddhism a meeting place where participants can learn through discussions, and come to a correct understanding of the various aspects involved in Buddha's teachings. E-Sangha's intent is to keep the tradition alive and flourishing, and to help bring peace, harmony and happiness into everyones lives. One does not need to be a Buddhist to benefit from the teachings, the benefits are available to everyone.
and to help bring peace, harmony and happiness into everyones lives -- If you live in a land traditionally given to Buddhism as its national religion, see if the people there are leading lives of peace, harmony, and happiness. Consider Kampuchea (Cambodia) during the days of the killing fields and even today, there is today no peace, harmony, and happiness in Kampuchea; it is a most backward country compared to even just Malaysia or Indonesia or certainly not Singapore or Japan or China; but look at Myanmar (Burma), is there peace, harmony, and happiness for everyone in Myanmar under a clique of generals who grabbed the government and would not let civilians take over and install democracy? And these are two countries which have been of the Buddhist faith for more than a thousand continuous years.
quote:
E-Sangha Chat & Forum provides forums for participation in discussions which includes all the main traditions such as Mahayana, Vajrayana, Nichiren, Theravada and Zen. There is also a facility for general Buddhist discussion where members are able to engage in exchanging various aspects of this ancient tradition.
where members are able to engage in exchanging various aspects of this ancient tradition -- that is what is being praised incessantly by Western intelligentsia that Buddhism is a most tolerant religion, tolerant within and tolerant without, of differences and even dissents among peoples calling themselves Buddhists and also with other religions. However, see this list of sects or schools of Buddhism which E-Sangha ostracizes most heartily:
quote:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=announce&f=22&id=13
These Few Buddhism School Of Thoughts Are Not Recognized By E-Sangha
Teyes Administrator
Group: Admin
Posts: 1,002
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-June 03
These few "Buddhism" school of thoughts are not recognized by e-Sangha. No links to their websites, their books, their followers' websites are allowed.
1) New Kadampa Tradition
2) Dark Zen
3) Lama Ponya Yeshe (Kentucky)
4) True Buddha School
Thank you for your cooperation.
I will be back tomorrow for more commentaries on E-Sangha Buddhism Portal.
Pachomius |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2006 : 20:08:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pachomius
I will be back tomorrow for more commentaries on E-Sangha Buddhism Portal.
Why?
Why not take on Buddhism itself, instead of a single website about it?
And where is your evidence that you've correctly described the "ideal life" for a Buddhist?
Why do you seem to avoid engaging in a discussion about your posts? Are you simply looking for another anti-Buddhist soapbox? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
