Guest Dan Wood Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44fb6847.24099500@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:16:53 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Usenet is the closest to anarchy that most of us will ever experience. > >> It is not a friendly place. If you want a friend, get a dog. > > >Yes, you get a very good indication as to what the world would be if there > >were _only_ atheist! > > Our beagle Artie (nickname for Artemus Cuojo) is convinced I am God > and my wife is Goddess. He better be convinced, if he wants supper. > Great!! I love it Dan Wood, DDS > > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain > Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:40BKg.34389$C6.29230@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message snp >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? >> >> Please make up your mind. >> > No, you have slandered me. Poor baby! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gDHKg.233$Ca4.167@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > news:44fb061a.497953@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On 03 Sep 2006 09:54:23 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>No, you have slandered me. >> >> >I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the > docket...they'll >> >appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. >> >> The court will cite him for contempt because he brought a frivolous >> suit. >> >> Usenet is the closest to anarchy that most of us will ever experience. >> It is not a friendly place. If you want a friend, get a dog. >> > Yes, you get a very good indication as to what the world would be if there > were _only_ atheist! What? Normal? Sane? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message snup >> > I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against > me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of > court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an > attornet What's that? The mini version? and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do > anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway! > But don't be so nasty in the future. Oh, go fuck yourself. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 Quote
Guest Lizz Holmans Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:18:21 -0400, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:40BKg.34389$C6.29230@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> >> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > >snp >>> >>> You're liable to be psychotic? >>> >>> Please make up your mind. >>> >> No, you have slandered me. > >Poor baby! Actually, he was libelled. Allegedly. Lizz 'thrown out of the bar on a technicality' Holmans -- Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:4m1goiF43jm5U1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:gDHKg.233$Ca4.167@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > > news:44fb061a.497953@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> On 03 Sep 2006 09:54:23 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >>No, you have slandered me. > >> > >> >I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the > > docket...they'll > >> >appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. > >> > >> The court will cite him for contempt because he brought a frivolous > >> suit. > >> > >> Usenet is the closest to anarchy that most of us will ever experience. > >> It is not a friendly place. If you want a friend, get a dog. > >> > > Yes, you get a very good indication as to what the world would be if there > > were _only_ atheist! > > What? Normal? Sane? > No! Vile, evil and vicious. A dog eat dog world, with nature dripping red tooth and claw. Dan > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire > #1557 > > Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message >news:szk64g5atls.fsf@fnord.io.com... >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> >news:di4jf2l4g5a87597jkbkf4pehe1rc5gh8g@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:11:45 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:k4rgf2ti0v4q21vpdh1huaqejsnim6ip2f@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:39:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:khjef29jc6dhsh5mofj8i7qd3blljp1p2b@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:41:33 -0400, "Dan Wood" ><danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:p8abf2d1pomubs5q5u80dftfvk4n8t6q5k@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:34 -0400, "Dan Wood" >> ><danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >news:q031f2hblv80i1dc5uptift4teeeel6ras@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:58:55 -0400, "DanWood" >> >> ><drwood@bellsouth.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not a matter of what "I think". dishnest trolling >> >> >> >> >> >> theist. >> >> >> >> >> >I checked out R.D.Heilman he is a Jew, not that I think there >> >> >> >> >> >is something wrong with being Jewish, but Jews have never >> >> >> >> >> >accepted Jesus Christ. I could never deny him. >> >> >> >> >> Deny who? A fictional character or Mr. Heilman? >> >> >> >> > I could never deny Jesus Christ, your fictional character who is >> >> >> >> > real to me! >> >> >> >> Take your meds, Dan. >> >> >> >Thanks, but so far I've been able to get along just fine without >> >> >> >any meds. >> >> >> That's a common statement amongst the psychotic. >> >> >Are you acousing me of being psychotic??? >> >> Guilty conscience I see. >> >> >If so this is liable. >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? >> >> Please make up your mind. >> >No, you have slandered me. >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the docket...they'll >> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway! >But don't be so nasty in the future. Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is "nasty"? (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in a newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.) -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9) NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35 Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com... > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: <SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable. > > >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? > > >> >> Please make up your mind. > > >> >No, you have slandered me. > > >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the docket...they'll > >> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. > > >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against > >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of > >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an > >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do > >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway! > >But don't be so nasty in the future. > > Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is "nasty"? > (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in a > newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.) > In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it. Dan > > -- > Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas > chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) > LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9) > NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35 Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message >news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com... >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: ><SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable. >> >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? >> >> >> Please make up your mind. >> >> >No, you have slandered me. >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the >> >> docket...they'll appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. >> >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against >> >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of >> >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an >> >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do >> >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway! >> >But don't be so nasty in the future. >> Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is "nasty"? >> (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in a >> newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.) >In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup >with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it. If you're too full of yourself to pay attention, I look forward to you finding out the hard way. (I won't be a party to it.) -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9) NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35 Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:36:38 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: >In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup >with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it. You will have a very difficult time proving malicious intent, especially for posters to Usenet. Most are too stoned to be truly malicious. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On 04 Sep 2006 00:45:35 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com> wrote: >If you're too full of yourself to pay attention, I look forward to you finding >out the hard way. (I won't be a party to it.) You run the real risk of being countersued for harassment. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:p3OKg.27958$y7.22070@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message > news:szkslj8i7yt.fsf@fnord.io.com... >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> writes: > <SNIP> >> >> >If so this is liable. >> >> >> >> You're liable to be psychotic? >> >> >> >> Please make up your mind. >> >> >> >No, you have slandered me. >> >> >> I'm looking forward to seeing the court put that on the > docket...they'll >> >> appreciate the laugh from your legal (ahem) expertise. >> >> >I'm not unfamiliar with trials having had 3 cases brought against >> >me over the years. I won one, lost one, had one thrown out of >> >court. Insurance paid off the one I lost. My brother is an >> >attornet and a partner in a law firm. But I don't intend to do >> >anything about you, chances are you have nothing anyway! >> >But don't be so nasty in the future. >> >> Pointing out your arrogance and lack of basic legal knowldge is >> "nasty"? >> (There's an obvious reason you can't sue -anyone- for slander, if it's in > a >> newsgroup. Have fun figuring that out.) >> > In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup > with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it. > > Dan Dan, for God's sake stop displaying your ignorance and go and find out the difference between libel and slander, before you embarrass yourself further. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Lizz Holmans" <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:tl3nf2l0v08ti57i71evtloos57j74iifq@4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:18:21 -0400, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> >>"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:40BKg.34389$C6.29230@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>> >>> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> >>snp >>>> >>>> You're liable to be psychotic? >>>> >>>> Please make up your mind. >>>> >>> No, you have slandered me. >> >>Poor baby! > > Actually, he was libelled. Allegedly. Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I reckon. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:21:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I >reckon. It's good to be back on topic again. Define "psychotic God". It sounds like an oxymoron. Also, convince us you are not projecting. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44fc09fb.2847125@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:21:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > wrote: > >>Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I >>reckon. > > It's good to be back on topic again. > > Define "psychotic God". It sounds like an oxymoron. > > Also, convince us you are not projecting. A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, particularly as described in the Old Testament. A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >particularly as described in the Old Testament. >A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people. That would be the God of the Chosen People. The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest mejercit@hotmail.com Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Steve O wrote: > "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > news:44fc09fb.2847125@news-server.houston.rr.com... > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 11:21:54 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > > wrote: > > > >>Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I > >>reckon. > > > > It's good to be back on topic again. > > > > Define "psychotic God". It sounds like an oxymoron. > > > > Also, convince us you are not projecting. > > A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, particularly > as described in the Old Testament. > A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent people. > He killed those people to show His power. Michael Quote
Guest knucmo Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Bob wrote: > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:36:38 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >In other words you can make false slanderous statements in a newsgroup > >with impunity. If you were worth anything I might be inclined to test it. > > You will have a very difficult time proving malicious intent, > especially for posters to Usenet. Most are too stoned to be truly > malicious. Hence: "Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to stupidity". An important principle. Quote
Guest knucmo Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Steve O wrote: > Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I > reckon. Given that psychotic is a property of something isn't it just as possible to say: "Anyone who follows an omnipotent God must be a little omnipotent?" I don't reckon it follows when you start applying human attributes to a God. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > wrote: > >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, > > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to read the Christian bible. The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful killer. > >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and innocent >>people. > > That would be the God of the Chosen People. And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly? > > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. > You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or did you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? > -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:12:48 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >>>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, >> Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. If >> you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless you >> are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one needs to >read the Christian bible. So you DO imagine that you can read my mind, eh. That is not my God. Do strive to understand that. >The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and wrathful >killer. More leftist queer whining. >> That would be the God of the Chosen People. >And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly? The God of the Old Textament is not the same as the God of the New Testament. >> The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy named >> Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. >You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. >The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or did >you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? Christ happened. He said he was going to reform the Old Testament, which he did. It is you who is confused about which God you are talking about. >"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way >that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" In your case, I would not count on it. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Lizz Holmans Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 On 4 Sep 2006 10:44:52 -0700, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Steve O wrote: > >> Anyone who follows a psychotic God must be a little psychotic, at least, I >> reckon. > >Given that psychotic is a property of something isn't it just as >possible to say: > >"Anyone who follows an omnipotent God must be a little omnipotent?" > >I don't reckon it follows when you start applying human attributes to a >God. Look, my kids think I'm a whole lot omnipotent, and I plan to keep it that way as long as possible. Lizz 'I charge high rent for nine months lodging' Holmans -- Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> lied > Christ said he was going to reform the Old Testament What was actually said: Matthew 5:17 [ The Fulfillment of the Law ] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > I don;t agree with princeton Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ <quote> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false. </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote > I don;t agree with princeton Try Copi's textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ <quote> Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false! Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not prove false. </quote> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.