KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

BobD · 2012-07-08 21:39:56

Jayaraj wrote:
BobD wrote:
Is what bruce does here on this board, one iota different then what everyone accused the entity known as pearl of doing? Minus the colorful adjectives? And is not the rest of the board doing to him, exactly what I was accused of doing to pearl...that is...enabling him and his sick fantasies? Most everyone here seems to understand that somewhere along the way, bruce went from being a participant to becoming judge, juror and high executioner with not one ounce of care or concern for the truth other than his version of it that he staunchly defends as ultimate.

To me, as an observing troll...it is as clear as the sun in the sky. Minus some obvious differences in control over his emotions and/or a total lack of spontenaeity due to a very violent and calculated nature...he is no different then what everyone accused pearl of being.

He is now...the most powerful personality on the board. Sir Bruce...I applaud you. You are...The King of the Jungle.
I hope you don't get offended by this, because you have said no response is necessary.I see you didn't respond to my last post to you. So is this something to do with what we say about Pearl?

I can't believe anybody saying what Bruce does here is what Pearl did here.Bruce doesn't agree with me also after some point, has said I don't understand, contradict & so on, but to me that's not a problem. I have never seen Bruce to be violent.He never abuses, insults anybody & have you noticed sir, Bruce is an excellent thread runner. I tend to answer, so I don't have that capacity. Bruce has that. He keeps on raising questions which helps to unravel the question, helps others to participate.

So I am completely dumbfounded by your observation.Bruce appears to me to be an asset for an inquiring site like this.

I'm not sure what post of yours I did not respond to so I don't have an answer for you there. Bruce does all the things pearl was accused of doing minus the swear words is all I was saying. Bruce is convinced that he see's all and lets everyone else that disagrees with him know that he sees they don't. Same as pearl minus the colorful adjectives. Bruce sometimes says some good things (minus the colorful adjectives) Pearl also said a lot of good things and was attacked regardless of what she said...and it was simply due to hurt feelings because of past outbursts directed at several here. I once again say that Bruce is the new pearl...same mind frame that pearl was in minus the swear words. Bruce is the most powerful personality on the board currently. Doesn't mean thats a good thing but none the less he is. HE is not the one that should be banned...it is me because I simply don't buy into the acts of so called seriousness on this board. Quite frankly...I only come here for entertainment. I should be banned...thats all.

wilbro99 · 2012-07-08 22:17:23

Ah, the good humor man in a bad humor gives an ironic slant to the day.

The Troll comes here for the entertainment, whilst the Court Jester comes here to play with the word that epitomizes the self-reference; the self referenced in that referencing.

What makes it so delicious to play with is the fact that the self-reference is both the noun verbing and the verb nouning.

Just think of what might happen if one were to fall, quite unexpectedly, or prepared, into such an act. Can you imagine the chaos that might ensue?

First off, the only way to put those two-for-one together, for anyone who has bought into the one that is two, is to make the act the identity, and that because the identity action is the expression of an expresser and the expressing.

This second one is split into noun and verb, which means that it may reflect upon it one that is two in two different ways, and use that division as the absolute divider. Thus, the subjective and the objective are the two in one that are two in one.

Such chaos, I tell you. When the one that is two in one doubles, it becomes the one that is four. The shift from the digital to the analogue that spins around the between of the digital, is an absolute shift; the pulse becomes a wave.

Well, you get the drift here. There are two ways to put those two together; the way of chaos, which gets universal in nature, and simply to make the doing the doer.

And, if you think about it, since the doing defines the present, to become the doing would surely ground one in one's senses.

Well, again, of such stuff are tall tales told. The pleasure in the telling is like taking a joy ride around the way of chaos, shifting four times each rounder. It all has something to do with the two different meanings of is, one of which is the identity sign and the other of which is direction of the arrow of time.

I suspect that what I have just accomplished is a wonk wherein a wonker wonking on the difference between being the wonker and the wonking, has described that movement in terms of a process. Let's tag it the process of identity.

Well, Troll, were you entertained?

wilbro99 · 2012-07-08 22:19:00

Hey, I should be banned for wonking in public, I mean, two for the price of one should be a deal buster!

Jayaraj · 2012-07-08 22:20:09

Ha, ha, I don't think you should be banned.

Yes, Pearl had some very good posts but in the end something happened to her, the outbursts started overrunning everything else Bob. At least that's how I saw it.

I was wondering whether it was Paul operating. (name also sounds very similar-but that doesn't mean anything)He can be really brilliant too. However I may be totally wrong there.

Then I had been mistaken that you overlooked some post.May be that was something that didn't need an answer.Fine,thanks.

bruce sean · 2012-07-09 00:08:24

BobD wrote:
Jayaraj wrote:
BobD wrote:
Is what bruce does here on this board, one iota different then what everyone accused the entity known as pearl of doing? Minus the colorful adjectives? And is not the rest of the board doing to him, exactly what I was accused of doing to pearl...that is...enabling him and his sick fantasies? Most everyone here seems to understand that somewhere along the way, bruce went from being a participant to becoming judge, juror and high executioner with not one ounce of care or concern for the truth other than his version of it that he staunchly defends as ultimate.

To me, as an observing troll...it is as clear as the sun in the sky. Minus some obvious differences in control over his emotions and/or a total lack of spontenaeity due to a very violent and calculated nature...he is no different then what everyone accused pearl of being.

He is now...the most powerful personality on the board. Sir Bruce...I applaud you. You are...The King of the Jungle.
I hope you don't get offended by this, because you have said no response is necessary.I see you didn't respond to my last post to you. So is this something to do with what we say about Pearl?

I can't believe anybody saying what Bruce does here is what Pearl did here.Bruce doesn't agree with me also after some point, has said I don't understand, contradict & so on, but to me that's not a problem. I have never seen Bruce to be violent.He never abuses, insults anybody & have you noticed sir, Bruce is an excellent thread runner. I tend to answer, so I don't have that capacity. Bruce has that. He keeps on raising questions which helps to unravel the question, helps others to participate.

So I am completely dumbfounded by your observation.Bruce appears to me to be an asset for an inquiring site like this.
I'm not sure what post of yours I did not respond to so I don't have an answer for you there. Bruce does all the things pearl was accused of doing minus the swear words is all I was saying. Bruce is convinced that he see's all and lets everyone else that disagrees with him know that he sees they don't. Same as pearl minus the colorful adjectives. Bruce sometimes says some good things (minus the colorful adjectives) Pearl also said a lot of good things and was attacked regardless of what she said...and it was simply due to hurt feelings because of past outbursts directed at several here. I once again say that Bruce is the new pearl...same mind frame that pearl was in minus the swear words. Bruce is the most powerful personality on the board currently. Doesn't mean thats a good thing but none the less he is. HE is not the one that should be banned...it is me because I simply don't buy into the acts of so called seriousness on this board. Quite frankly...I only come here for entertainment. I should be banned...thats all.

I couldn't agree with you more, Bob! I would ban anyone admitting they're not serious and come here just for fun, effective immediately!

bruce sean · 2012-07-09 00:12:01

Frenchtouch wrote:
I'm still waiting for somebody who will PM me an interesting comment from bruce.

This is not a problem, is it? bruce is the least interesting person on the planet, as he said in a reply to sds. Just ignore him.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-07-10 13:45:39)

bruce sean · 2012-07-09 00:19:02

wilbro99 wrote:
bruce: So you're suggesting that approaching this thing with a chuckle does not mean giving up, right?

willy: so, intelligence, in seeing that the brick wall is indeed a brick wall, stops trying to walk through it. When will Tweety ever not need to keep a sharp eye out for Sylvester?

bruce: I question that: it it really a brick wall? Is it completely rigid? At the moment it is, the corruption is total. But when there's no activity, there is no brick wall, you follow? For one second, the brick could be gone, and then the potential can be seen, after which it might never be the same.

Hi bruce, willy here. Yes, I think I see the universe you are coming from. So, let me put shift my self-perspective and see if I can join you.

No, not a brick wall, but more like a digital gate, where that wall, if taken physically, is a bloody affair, and if taken mindedly, is easy as hell to pass though. And yes, there are questions about on and off, and such.

The *no brick wall* is the imagined one, the one wall we can imagine ourselves going through, or having gone through.

And yes, when that imagined world is seen to have been imagined, that which follows is something else, isn’t it?

Ok, let me get a bit wonkey here. Can you see that that moment is door through which you entered, and that the door through which I entered is the same door, yet absolutely different?

What if that imagined world was not seen in one fell swoop, but, say, only the future was the imagined?

The imagination mankind is trapped in seems to be a brick wall. How do you awake a person who's asleep? That's the brick wall, to me: they won't listen to anything except their imagined little cell, which they call happiness.
One way is through talking; but everybody has different ways of arriving to an understanding, same words may trigger different reactions, so one approach is to approach this same old thing from any possible angle, in order to cover a lot of brains'structures. To improve communications, but also to look at it from any 'hidden' angle. I don't see any other way.

wilbro99 · 2012-07-09 01:32:32

Hi bruce, a few comments.

<<The imagination mankind is trapped in seems to be a brick wall. How do you awake a person who's asleep? That's the brick wall, to me: they won't listen to anything except their imagined little cell, which they call happiness. …>>

Aw, come on, that is the way it is. If it weren't that way, there would be nothing to say. Hey, the problem in this way of looking at it is that they won't listen, so you can do as much by saying nothing as you can by saying something.

<<… One way is through talking; but everybody has different ways of arriving to an understanding, same words may trigger different reactions, so one approach is to approach this same old thing from any possible angle, in order to cover a lot of brains' structures. To improve communications, but also to look at it from any 'hidden' angle. I don't see any other way. >>

There is no other way, talking is the only way to say something to another. Look, I wrote a guide to do my talking for me, and it makes no difference.

I think there is a way though, emulate that camel that gets its nose under the tent flap, and that means looking for agreements, not offering up the decisive difference. If you can get an agreement on differences, regardless of what that difference is, that is the nose under the tent.

Let me know what you think.

BobD · 2012-07-09 08:10:37

wilbro99 wrote:
Ah, the good humor man in a bad humor gives an ironic slant to the day.

The Troll comes here for the entertainment, whilst the Court Jester comes here to play with the word that epitomizes the self-reference; the self referenced in that referencing.

What makes it so delicious to play with is the fact that the self-reference is both the noun verbing and the verb nouning.

Just think of what might happen if one were to fall, quite unexpectedly, or prepared, into such an act. Can you imagine the chaos that might ensue?

First off, the only way to put those two-for-one together, for anyone who has bought into the one that is two, is to make the act the identity, and that because the identity action is the expression of an expresser and the expressing.

This second one is split into noun and verb, which means that it may reflect upon it one that is two in two different ways, and use that division as the absolute divider. Thus, the subjective and the objective are the two in one that are two in one.

Such chaos, I tell you. When the one that is two in one doubles, it becomes the one that is four. The shift from the digital to the analogue that spins around the between of the digital, is an absolute shift; the pulse becomes a wave.

Well, you get the drift here. There are two ways to put those two together; the way of chaos, which gets universal in nature, and simply to make the doing the doer.

And, if you think about it, since the doing defines the present, to become the doing would surely ground one in one's senses.

Well, again, of such stuff are tall tales told. The pleasure in the telling is like taking a joy ride around the way of chaos, shifting four times each rounder. It all has something to do with the two different meanings of is, one of which is the identity sign and the other of which is direction of the arrow of time.

I suspect that what I have just accomplished is a wonk wherein a wonker wonking on the difference between being the wonker and the wonking, has described that movement in terms of a process. Let's tag it the process of identity.

Well, Troll, were you entertained?

Yes willy...I was. Thank you. Now...off with my head.

BobD · 2012-07-09 08:17:35

Brucey boy says: I couldn't agree with you more, Bob! I would ban anyone admitting they're not serious and come here just for fun, effective immediately!

Now...who could disagree with me here that bruce is a highly entertaining individual. Granted, it's probably the equivalent of being entertained by the random actions of a downs syndrome child but still...entertaining none the less. This is why I should be banned...it is not societally correct to find a retard funny and quite frankly I'm feeling a little guilty about it. Could someone cut my cord please? It's obvious that bruce's was wrapped around his little neck at birth, and now mine is preventing me from being free. Mercy! Mercy I say!

bruce sean · 2012-07-10 13:52:01

Bob, you haven't looked in the mirror yet: look now. Do you see the reflection of a child who talks about others being children?
As for retard, the whole mankind is retarded, don't kid yourself that normal is not retarded, or that you are not 'normal'.
But you will not see that, my boy, before you will not be a child anymore. A child has no idea what enlightenment really is: he just heard other children talk about it, and he's made a few images about it. Children tend to have rich imagination.

As for banning, I have a suggestion: if you think you should be banned, why not ban yourself?! It will show some responsibility...

bruce sean · 2012-07-10 13:57:10

wilbro99 wrote:
Hi bruce, a few comments.

<<The imagination mankind is trapped in seems to be a brick wall. How do you awake a person who's asleep? That's the brick wall, to me: they won't listen to anything except their imagined little cell, which they call happiness. …>>

Aw, come on, that is the way it is. If it weren't that way, there would be nothing to say. Hey, the problem in this way of looking at it is that they won't listen, so you can do as much by saying nothing as you can by saying something.

<<… One way is through talking; but everybody has different ways of arriving to an understanding, same words may trigger different reactions, so one approach is to approach this same old thing from any possible angle, in order to cover a lot of brains' structures. To improve communications, but also to look at it from any 'hidden' angle. I don't see any other way. >>

There is no other way, talking is the only way to say something to another. Look, I wrote a guide to do my talking for me, and it makes no difference.

I think there is a way though, emulate that camel that gets its nose under the tent flap, and that means looking for agreements, not offering up the decisive difference. If you can get an agreement on differences, regardless of what that difference is, that is the nose under the tent.

Let me know what you think.

'They won't listen', you say, BUT THEY MIGHT. But first they must have something to listen to.

Writing a guide to do the talking for you is as good as books doing the talking for a dead person like k. Besides, as I said to eden, there is no perfect way to say these things, so there must be a constant change of words, because each has a different way of understanding, each reacts differently to different words.
Besides, one must talk from the now, which is not the same as repeating what was said yesterday, a point completely missed in this forum.

BobD · 2012-07-10 15:53:26

bruce sean wrote:
Bob, you haven't looked in the mirror yet: look now. Do you see the reflection of a child who talks about others being children?
As for retard, the whole mankind is retarded, don't kid yourself that normal is not retarded, or that you are not 'normal'.
But you will not see that, my boy, before you will not be a child anymore. A child has no idea what enlightenment really is: he just heard other children talk about it, and he's made a few images about it. Children tend to have rich imagination.

As for banning, I have a suggestion: if you think you should be banned, why not ban yourself?! It will show some responsibility...

Yes bruce. And yes...you are the whole of mankind. And in watching you, I realize that this image of seriousness is laughable at best because of the "retarded" nature of the image of "seriousness" that you and a few others share. I have come here in the recent past like one might come back to view a train wreck because those on this board that claim that they "see", are nothing but train wrecks that hopped the tracks long ago. I do have my demand to be prevented from posting on this board permanently and to be taken off all KFA email lists in place. Tom has verified receiving my request so I imagine this will be one of the last, if not the last post I make here. I don't have a whole lot of residual dysfunctions left in my life and this board will be the most recent ones that I let go of. So before your request that I ban myself was proposed...I already had it done. Good to see we were on the same page there for a change.

Peace out brucey baby...and good luck in your fantasy quest.

beans · 2012-07-10 18:49:43

BobD wrote:
bruce sean wrote:
Bob, you haven't looked in the mirror yet: look now. Do you see the reflection of a child who talks about others being children?
As for retard, the whole mankind is retarded, don't kid yourself that normal is not retarded, or that you are not 'normal'.
But you will not see that, my boy, before you will not be a child anymore. A child has no idea what enlightenment really is: he just heard other children talk about it, and he's made a few images about it. Children tend to have rich imagination.

As for banning, I have a suggestion: if you think you should be banned, why not ban yourself?! It will show some responsibility...
Yes bruce. And yes...you are the whole of mankind. And in watching you, I realize that this image of seriousness is laughable at best because of the "retarded" nature of the image of "seriousness" that you and a few others share. I have come here in the recent past like one might come back to view a train wreck because those on this board that claim that they "see", are nothing but train wrecks that hopped the tracks long ago. I do have my demand to be prevented from posting on this board permanently and to be taken off all KFA email lists in place. Tom has verified receiving my request so I imagine this will be one of the last, if not the last post I make here. I don't have a whole lot of residual dysfunctions left in my life and this board will be the most recent ones that I let go of. So before your request that I ban myself was proposed...I already had it done. Good to see we were on the same page there for a change.

Peace out brucey baby...and good luck in your fantasy quest.

Sorry to hear you're thinking about leaving the forum, Bob, especially by force. Are you sure this is the best way to deal with "residual dysfunctions"? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say - Lol maybe I'm wrong about those relatives I've refused to speak to for years.

BobD · 2012-07-10 19:28:44

Thanks Beans. I will be looking in and still continue to enjoy the postings...only with out the temptation of posting smart ass comments. I am really ok without going deep into the writings of anyone and think that it is a complete waste of energy for me to sit around and judge others. Maybe some day I will come back and post but for the forseeable future, when it comes to any forum, I will become the troll monk. lol. I know it sounds silly but I really do need to cut this particular cord. I am simply too much of a chronic judgmental smart ass. Take care.

Anyday now Admin! Pull the cord! Pull it man! Pull it, cut it up, toss it...let me free fall away! LOL.

RJ · 2012-07-10 20:14:48

Best wishes on your healing journey mate
may your good humour and great honesty continue to show you your way.

joe · 2012-07-10 21:15:24

until then Bob, be well...

but, really there is no need to wait for someone else man, just unsubscribe if that is really what you want to do.

Or, start seeing the reactions as they happen, and go somewhere else with the same forum. Noone here is perfect, we both know that. Drop a big old jug of love on yourself, or at the least step in a puddle of it in the morning, and jump into the conversation.

Only a suggestion of course, do whatever you do.

BobD · 2012-07-10 22:45:03

OK. Since I'm not released yet...THIS may be my final response:

To RJ: Thanks...its been a pleasure

To Joe: I've tried unsubscribing several times in the past...doesn't seem to work. This time around I contacted admin directly and they have informed me that they will do this for me. There really are no hard feelings here...just a sense of the seeing is the doing. Or a simple dropping of. I've wanted to drop it for a long time, I've tried a few times...and now it seems it will finally be done for me. As an addictive personality it is easy to walk away...not so much staying away. But you know me Joe...I was away for a pretty long time at one point and I may be back. But not in the foreseable future.

Adios mis amigos.

joe · 2012-07-10 23:18:34

live long and prosper

nanu nanu...

BobD · 2012-07-11 07:50:59

lol. Pearl? Really jayaraj...pearl? Admin...check please! Really...can anything good come from this childish gibberish? I think the forum should follow suit and ban itself.

hermann · 2012-07-11 09:50:48

Not so. The more insane our postings here become, the more likely the chance of seeing that insanity. The beginning of seeing may well be the discovery of our own insanity.

Jayaraj · 2012-07-11 11:19:49

BobD wrote:
lol. Pearl? Really jayaraj...pearl? Admin...check please! Really...can anything good come from this childish gibberish? I think the forum should follow suit and ban itself.

Sorry, I don't know what you talk here.So I deleted my post.

amardaya · 2012-07-11 13:12:54

Since this is about pearl in a way I thought I would comment on the post. I read pearl's posts and see no threat, no one being attacked from her side. I would suggest participants like Jayaraj are just too paranoidly violent like bruce sean. Both of them have not contributed even one good post yet and only keep the show running. Bruce sean is a good entertainer like the movies he watches and Jayaraj represents his back ground of fear, conflict very well. Sorta clever but really vain and a bit too dumb and unintelligent his posts.

amardaya · 2012-07-11 13:21:05

bruce sean wrote:
BobD wrote:
Jayaraj wrote:

I hope you don't get offended by this, because you have said no response is necessary.I see you didn't respond to my last post to you. So is this something to do with what we say about Pearl?

I can't believe anybody saying what Bruce does here is what Pearl did here.Bruce doesn't agree with me also after some point, has said I don't understand, contradict & so on, but to me that's not a problem. I have never seen Bruce to be violent.He never abuses, insults anybody & have you noticed sir, Bruce is an excellent thread runner. I tend to answer, so I don't have that capacity. Bruce has that. He keeps on raising questions which helps to unravel the question, helps others to participate.

So I am completely dumbfounded by your observation.Bruce appears to me to be an asset for an inquiring site like this.
I'm not sure what post of yours I did not respond to so I don't have an answer for you there. Bruce does all the things pearl was accused of doing minus the swear words is all I was saying. Bruce is convinced that he see's all and lets everyone else that disagrees with him know that he sees they don't. Same as pearl minus the colorful adjectives. Bruce sometimes says some good things (minus the colorful adjectives) Pearl also said a lot of good things and was attacked regardless of what she said...and it was simply due to hurt feelings because of past outbursts directed at several here. I once again say that Bruce is the new pearl...same mind frame that pearl was in minus the swear words. Bruce is the most powerful personality on the board currently. Doesn't mean thats a good thing but none the less he is. HE is not the one that should be banned...it is me because I simply don't buy into the acts of so called seriousness on this board. Quite frankly...I only come here for entertainment. I should be banned...thats all.
I couldn't agree with you more, Bob! I would ban anyone admitting they're not serious and come here just for fun, effective immediately!

LOL! Bruce, you're a typical American, you and your banning buisiness. Childish stuff, I'd say.

amardaya · 2012-07-11 13:27:08

Jayaraj wrote:
Ha, ha, I don't think you should be banned.

Yes, Pearl had some very good posts but in the end something happened to her, the outbursts started overrunning everything else Bob. At least that's how I saw it.

I was wondering whether it was Paul operating. (name also sounds very similar-but that doesn't mean anything)He can be really brilliant too. However I may be totally wrong there.

Then I had been mistaken that you overlooked some post.May be that was something that didn't need an answer.Fine,thanks.

Liar! Sorry, but I think you are lying. I think you are afraid of something and blaming it on pearl. It could be something was happening to you and a few others. My guess is you and some others here wrote to the admin, and the admin eris hassat happily complied, angry, fearful people.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#26 2012-07-08 21:39:56

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

Jayaraj wrote:

BobD wrote:

#27 2012-07-08 22:17:23

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#28 2012-07-08 22:19:00

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#29 2012-07-08 22:20:09

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#30 2012-07-09 00:08:24

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

BobD wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

BobD wrote:

#31 2012-07-09 00:12:01

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

Frenchtouch wrote:

#32 2012-07-09 00:19:02

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

wilbro99 wrote:

#33 2012-07-09 01:32:32

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#34 2012-07-09 08:10:37

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

wilbro99 wrote:

#35 2012-07-09 08:17:35

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#36 2012-07-10 13:52:01

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#37 2012-07-10 13:57:10

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

wilbro99 wrote:

#38 2012-07-10 15:53:26

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

bruce sean wrote:

#39 2012-07-10 18:49:43

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

BobD wrote:

bruce sean wrote:

#40 2012-07-10 19:28:44

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#41 2012-07-10 20:14:48

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#42 2012-07-10 21:15:24

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#43 2012-07-10 22:45:03

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#44 2012-07-10 23:18:34

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#45 2012-07-11 07:50:59

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#46 2012-07-11 09:50:48

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#47 2012-07-11 11:19:49

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

BobD wrote:

#48 2012-07-11 13:12:54

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

#49 2012-07-11 13:21:05

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

bruce sean wrote:

BobD wrote:

Jayaraj wrote:

#50 2012-07-11 13:27:08

Re: No response necessary. Just a question to ponder from the board troll:

Jayaraj wrote:

Board footer