FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY

B

Bill M

Guest
Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.



The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.



The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and unlikelihood

of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there
are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown
accuracy.



One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between
lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no
spaces were used to separate words.



This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"

'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is no
where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left
accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely.



Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the
intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and
you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy.



Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the
vocabularies were much more limited than today.



The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their follower's
belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions alone
and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the
originals.



And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than
inaccurate fiction.



Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning.
 
But the money people make by publishing them is real!

"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.
>
>
>
> The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny,

destruction,
> barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
>
>
>
> The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and

unlikelihood
>
> of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there
> are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown
> accuracy.
>
>
>
> One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
> copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between
> lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no
> spaces were used to separate words.
>
>
>
> This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
>
> 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is

no
> where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left
> accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely.
>
>
>
> Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the
> intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and
> you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy.
>
>
>
> Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the
> vocabularies were much more limited than today.
>
>
>
> The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
> existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
> available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
> veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
> invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
> supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity.

They
> are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy.

And
> the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their

follower's
> belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions

alone
> and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the
> originals.
>
>
>
> And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than
> inaccurate fiction.
>
>
>
> Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning.
>
>
>
>
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
>barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
>certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
>untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.


There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate
history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a
fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott
Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the
Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated
"atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers.

Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

[drollery snipped]

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.


Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
 
On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.

>
> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
> usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate
> history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a
> fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott
> Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the
> Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated
> "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers.


As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to
understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're
telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then
Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as
such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is
generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's
not psychedelically weird. I think there are many examples of earlier
and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer,
Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few.

> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.


Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so.

So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it?

> [drollery snipped]
>
> Padraic
 
On Feb 20, 1:54 pm, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think there are many examples of earlier
> and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer,
> Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few.


I really enjoyed studying the works of Homer in my youth, far superior
to any of the fiction and fables contained within the bible.
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:26 -0500, Padraic Brown
<elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
>the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
>trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
>You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.


And you are a deliberately nasty, bigoted liar who knows that atheism
isn't a religion and doesn't proselytise.

>[drollery snipped]
>
>Padraic


Shove your crucifix up your ass and bugger yourself with it.
 
> Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.

There isn't much else to go on. What exactly is your point?
 
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

> Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.


I wouldn't advertise that if I were you. I've read the Bible.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"With religion, even the village idiot can feel like Einstein."
-- Denis Loubet
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:19:20 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:26 -0500, Padraic Brown
><elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
>>the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
>>trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
>>You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

>
>And you are a deliberately nasty, bigoted liar who knows that atheism
>isn't a religion and doesn't proselytise.


Ah, good morning sunshine! I'm glad you could spare us a moment of
your precious time to entertain us all with your rapier "wit".

>Shove your crucifix up your ass and bugger yourself with it.


Indeed. Still can't put two sensible words together without lacing the
whole with vulgarity? You'll _never_ win anyone over, or even attract
basic respect for your point of view, when the best you can come up
with is "shove your crucifix up your ass".

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 19 Feb 2007 16:35:32 -0800, "flightlessvacuum"
<flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
>> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
>> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
>> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

>
>Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.


Apples and oranges, really. A real atheist wouldn't even engage in the
above kind of nonsense. There would be no need for him to continually
press the point that there is no God nor would there be a need for him
to continually try to disparage the beliefs of others. For Bill M, his
"atheism" is faith of a curious kind.

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 19 Feb 2007 16:54:06 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>> >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
>> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
>> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
>> >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.

>>
>> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
>> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
>> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
>> usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate
>> history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a
>> fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott
>> Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the
>> Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated
>> "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers.

>
>As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to
>understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're
>telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then
>Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as
>such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is
>generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's
>not psychedelically weird.


Well, that's ancient literature for you. I hope you weren't expecting
something written to modern specs!

> I think there are many examples of earlier
>and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer,
>Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few.


I don't care much for Gilgamesh -- it too is strident and repetative
(but that's probably a cultural trait). I've never read "Monkey".

>> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
>> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
>> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
>> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

>
>Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so.
>
>So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it?


Did I say I "base my life" on the Bible?

Padraic

>
>> [drollery snipped]
>>
>> Padraic


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.

>
> There isn't much else to go on. What exactly is your point?


Do Christians really totally based their beliefs on the Bible? Most of
them haven't even read the damn thing, and the ones that have ignore
whatever they don't like. You can't "totally" base your beliefs on
something that contradicts itself.

---

Atheism vs. Christianity and Other Debate
http://debate.fgsfds.org/
 
One fine day in alt.atheism, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> bloodied
us up with this:

> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
> usually engaging stories.


As we've discovered through rational thought, however, the good teachings
of the bible simply parrot common sense. Then these teachings are
proclaimed available only to believers, demoralizing non-believers for no
reason other than non-belief.

Religious morality can easily be illustrated through one simple experiment.
If you want to observe firsthand the morality of any given human being,
give him power over others.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
 
<thedeviliam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171945953.785065.293000@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

<snipped stuff>

You can't "totally" base your beliefs on something that contradicts itself.
>
> --->
> Atheism vs. Christianity and Other Debate
> http://debate.fgsfds.org/
>


True

In the case of the BIBLE - we must remember that parts were removed "for our
benefit" - lol, so we don't even have the whole story, that by itself hurts
it historically.

Additionally, there are more than one transliteration, translations,
interpretation (or whatever you wish to call them), that are all by
different people of different backgrounds, based on a partial story.

It's no wonder that it became a work of contradiction.

This isn't even accounting for the fact that people further remove from it
to suite there own needs, hypocrisy is so sad.
--
Julie

maybe Mary made up the whole Jesus thing to keep from being stoned... :^D

beLieve everythIng or nothing but not only thE words of otherS...
 
Mettas Mother wrote:

> But the money people make by publishing them is real!


More than can be said for Benny Hinn's 'miracles'
and he has a private jet !

>
>
> "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:CJnCh.37307$19.7224@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > Christians totally base their faith on the Bibles.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> > human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny,

> destruction,
> > barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> > certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> > untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
> >
> >
> >
> > The average person today does not appreciate the difficulty and

> unlikelihood
> >
> > of producing accurate transmissions of the original Bibles. Firstly there
> > are no originals in existence. They are all copies of copies of unknown
> > accuracy.
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the problems with the accuracy of the Bibles is that when they were
> > copied, no marks of punctuation were used, no distinction was made between
> > lower case and upper case letters and more bizarre to modern script, no
> > spaces were used to separate words.
> >
> >
> >
> > This kind of continuous writing was called "scriptuo continua"
> >
> > 'godisnowhere' could mean 'god is now here' or quit the opposite, 'god is

> no
> > where' depending on the spacing which not used at the time. This left
> > accurate interpretation very difficult and unlikely.
> >
> >
> >
> > Add to this the natural occurrence of errors of transmission and the
> > intentional modification to suite the transcribers wishes and beliefs and
> > you have documents of highly questionable meaning and accuracy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Further compounding the problem was the size and accuracy of the
> > vocabularies were much more limited than today.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
> > existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
> > available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
> > veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
> > invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
> > supposedly written by 50 or more different authors of unknown veracity.

> They
> > are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy.

> And
> > the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their

> follower's
> > belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions

> alone
> > and there is no way of knowing how far they have wondered from the
> > originals.
> >
> >
> >
> > And there is no evidence that even the originals are anything more than
> > inaccurate fiction.
> >
> >
> >
> > Basing ones life and faith on these documents is not very sound reasoning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
 
Padraic Brown wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.

>
> There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
> you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
> are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
> usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate
> history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a
> fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott
> Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the
> Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated
> "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers.
>
> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.


If you want to wax lyrical about verbiage,
read Emmett's final line - it speaks volumes

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]



>
>
> [drollery snipped]
>
> Padraic
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Padraic Brown wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2007 16:35:32 -0800, "flightlessvacuum"
> <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
> >> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
> >> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
> >> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

> >
> >Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

>
> Apples and oranges, really. A real atheist wouldn't even engage in the
> above kind of nonsense. There would be no need for him to continually
> press the point that there is no God nor would there be a need for him
> to continually try to disparage the beliefs of others. For Bill M, his
> "atheism" is faith of a curious kind.


........as long as religionists insist on killing each other together with
inoocent bystanders
in the process of 'protecting' their myths atheists will be around.

One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have
believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.
[Mark Twain, Notebook (1900)]





>
>
> Padraic
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Neil Kelsey wrote:

> On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:26:16 -0500, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> > >human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> > >barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
> > >certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
> > >untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.

> >
> > There's a lot of good ethical and moral foundation in there, too, but
> > you always leave that sort of thing out of your diatribes. The myths
> > are generally inspiring, often teaching good behaviour traits and are
> > usually engaging stories. The Bible isn't intended to be "accurate
> > history". On the whole, it is actually pretty good fiction. There is a
> > fairly recent retelling of the Bible's subtext (Richard Elliott
> > Friedman's "The Hidden Book in the Bible"); once you get away from the
> > Bible as a Bible and look at it as literature, even a Bible-fixated
> > "atheist" such as yourself can enjoy what merits it offers.

>
> As an atheist who loves literaure, I had to read the Bible in order to
> understand all the references. This is just my opinion, but if you're
> telling me the Bible is good fiction (I agree that it's fiction) then
> Celine DIon is a good singer. I realize it's ancient writing, and as
> such holds a certain historical interest, but I think the writing is
> generally strident, contradictory, repetitive, and boring when it's
> not psychedelically weird. I think there are many examples of earlier
> and better writing from other cultures than the Bible. Homer,
> Gilgamesh, Monkey (from China), just to name a few.


"All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any reasonable person that
the Bible is simply and purely of human invention of barbarian invention is to
read it. Read it as you would any other book; think of it as you would of any
other, get the bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the
phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowed form of
superstition then read the Holy bible, and you will be amazed that you ever, for
one moment, suppose a being of infinite wisdom, goodness and purity to be the
author of such ignorance and such atrocity."
[Robert Ingersoll (from his essay 'The Gods')]


>
>
> > Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
> > the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
> > trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
> > You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

>
> Oh. So you weren't giving a book review. Didn't think so.
>
> So if the Bible isn't accurate why base your life on it?
>
> > [drollery snipped]
> >
> > Padraic
 
"flightlessvacuum" <flightlessvacuumster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171931732.535573.172060@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 12:46 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Also, you are once again falling into your usual trap of fixation on
>> the negative. One would think you're really a Moslem or something,
>> trying to prosletyse your own religion over others. Oh, that's right!
>> You're an Atheist trying to prosletyse your religion over others.

>
> Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
>

Are you trying to quote Existentialist Sartre? This is what he said: To
say one does not believe in God is like saying one does not believe in
baldness.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Back
Top