Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality (Read 28032 times)
betson
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 3445
SE USA
Gender: female
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #15 - May 22nd, 2009 at 5:01pm
 
Greetings,

Can we aim three or four steps ahead of where we are, or should we take each step one at a time?  Does it matter?
Now substitute for 'steps'  -- use 'realms' or 'states of being.'

We know we lose uniqueness as we ascend into afterlife realms. Those who've visited FLs in the 30's have reported that beings of form merge, and their spirit is unified into energy; light increases.

Perhaps after visiting a 30s level realm, RS has made it his life's mission to tell us of the state of being up there. Perhaps he's skipped a few rungs on Jacob's Ladder and is sharing with us that we can do the same.  Have any of you heard that we can or can't develop that way?

If that is true or possible, what we have been discussing is how to live our lives while on the (only?) physical rung of the Ladder. Maybe we should be looking ahead to discover where the ladder leads -- ?

Bets



Back to top
 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare
 
IP Logged
 
Justin
Ex Member


Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #16 - May 22nd, 2009 at 5:20pm
 
  Albert, i figure the only main difference between a fully liberated person like Yeshua, and those who aren't, is this:

  The former types spend every moment in viewing life/The Creator, others, themselves, and the process positively and with pure unconditional love. 

  They don't magically lose a sense of self, the "I" is still there, but the I only focuses on positivity, love, inclusiveness, and helpfulness, and disregards the so called material needs and wants of the little I, and totally focuses on helping all the other various I's within the Big I. 

  A clue to Richard's non full liberation is him not recognizing that even when one remembers and lives that Source Consciousness fully again, that there is still a need or desire within the little I...

  And that, as Yeshua so simply and beautifully put, is to live the Will of Source, which is to help uplift others, to help transform them to this Core truth, beingness, and experience. 

  Even then we have a "need" and a desire in the little i, but it's the little I in conjunction with Source, and it's not an emotional attachment need, but a whole being need and desire. 

 

  How much does one change when they have completed process, both a lot and yet not that much.   We still have our individual feelings, thoughts, choices, etc.   Or in other words, we still know ourselves to ourselves, unique, individual, and yet completely at One with the All and all that exists within same.

  They've just become purely loving and positive in nature.   Even when they are discriminating and seemingly "critical" (for Yeshua has criticized me before), the inner intention is positive and they still feel and think very positively of us, there is no emotional fear, one upmanship, dislike or repulsion involved like with most people's criticisms of each other, beliefs, or ideas. 

  Ironically, sometimes the more intune we become within ourselves, sometimes the more such intune Guidance energies constructively criticize us, especially when we are erring and know better. 

  For the immature and only so so mature cannot handle criticism, even more constructive and gentle kinds. 

  Who am i to speak on a process of which i have not yet completed?  Well i pretty much just parrot the words and teachings of one i know through repeated inner and outer guidance, has completed this process of full remembrance and living Sourceness. 

  Also, while this probably sounds egotistical to most here (why would it be when its the destiny of every child of Source?), i've been getting various kinds of guidance lately, both inner and outer, that its probable that i may complete this process in this life.   

  Hence, the closer one gets, the faster vibratory ones energies become, the more accurately, deeply, and holistically they can perceive the issues related to this very subject.   

  Yet, it is very misleading to self and to others, to label and think of oneself as "liberated" before one really is, and i will never do that.   

 

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #17 - May 22nd, 2009 at 5:29pm
 
Perhaps Betson.

Also perhaps, I'm going to become the next super guru. Smiley  I'm going to teach something that no other guru has taught before.  I'm going to let everybody know that not even pure awareness exists, because it is absolutely impossible for anything at all to exist.  I'm going to tell people don't listen to your experience if you believe you are aware, because the fact of the matter is that you aren't aware.  If people wonder how I know such a thing, I'll tell them that I know this at a level that is beyond both mind and pure awareness, and as long as they believe they are beings who are aware of their existence, they won't be able to understand as "the absence of I" understand.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 22nd, 2009 at 8:06pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #18 - May 22nd, 2009 at 9:28pm
 
I see you know the tricks Recoverer  Smiley . Thanks for your posts dear friends.

I've thought about Sylvester, and have read another interview of him. I put aside his global claims (like "there are no persons" etc.) as these to me seem to be conclusions/constructions from his way of experiencing, and those claims, containing underlying truths (great pun btw) are not very fruitable I find.

I focused on passages where, to me, his way of perceiving the world, or his experiences, shine through. From this, I got the following impression:

It is a teachable, practicable mental technique. It is not such a deep alteration of experiencing as I first thought. In fact, I've been in such states many times, I only haven't noticed it due to Sylvester's style. When you're experienced in meditation, you might know this state: After a while of bodily relaxation, maybe a bit breathing exercises, and a bit thinking about your day, you calm down more and more and at some point you will become aware of your thoughts. You avoid to actively think, and then it appears as if thoughts arise and pass by. When you're good at this, you will not be affected emotionally or mentally by these thoughts. And this is the state, from my impression, which Sylvester talks about. We may call it maintaining a distance to your thoughts. It's not so easy to reach this state, but it's not overly difficult either. What's difficult is to hold this state for very long, and even more difficult when you return to daily activity.

The feeling which accompanies this state is just deep relaxation. It's very comfortable, like dozing peacefully.

Ironically, I once reached an even more comfortable state with a seemingly opposite method. At night lying in my bed, mind awake. In my mind I was guided by someone to a special place and it was a sort of great expanding of me. It indeed felt like a liberation (I admit this feeling was THAT blissful that I thought must be enlightenment). The next day that feeling was still there, but was getting weaker, so to hold it I tried some methods to make it stay, and one which seemed to hinder this feeling to decrease was to imagine I expand myself over the entire world, so that, in this imagination, my surrounding was part of "my" world. It seems like the opposite of what Sylvester told, but only at the surface. The point of it is not some vanishing or expanding of "me", it is the imagination of a great free space. It will make you less self-concentrated, irritable, and anxious. Not without reason Sylvester talked about the "jail" of the person, which is, in his opinion, the imagination of the person itself, I add: Not the person, but in which state the person is.

There are some similarities to the ego-reducing-work, but differences as well.  

And I remember too, I once had a mind-journey which I labeled with "the emptiness which is the fullness/richness", and another one where I had the impression I was a sort of knot, like a transmitter station, in a network, both experiences which remind of what Sylvester says. When I should give a Focus-Level number, both would be beyond F34, but I'm guessing here.

So, my conclusion for now is, Sylvester's writings don't give an insight into the truth, or what really is or so, but describe one of several consciousness states, which is reachable with training. When you're good in Bruce's techniques, you can playfully pretend Sylvester's claims are true, and I think you will get results. I recommend it for people who are over-sensitive, anxious, nervous. But don't believe in it like in "the truth".

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #19 - May 27th, 2009 at 12:47pm
 
Spooky:

Related to what you wrote, I believe that non-dualists experience some aspect of truth, combine what they experience with the beliefs they acquire by reading what non-dual sources of information have to say, and because they believe non-dual teachings are complete and infallible, they don't check to see what other levels of truth exist.

Why would they bother to check out what other sources of information have to say and what other experiences are possible, if they believe that everything but pure awareness is nothing but an illusion?

Say a little kid created something he is quite proud of and he decides to show it to his dad. Should his father open his heart to love and say "good job son" or should his father tell him, "You're just a meaningless illusion kid, buzz off?"
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Beau
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1176
Greenville SC
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #20 - May 27th, 2009 at 5:13pm
 
I say we're in a learning pattern and it is an illusion, but to not abide by the golden rule keeps one encased in this pattern. Non Dualism is ultimately what I believe. There is no good or evil outside of the learning patterns. I read this thread so I felt I should throw my two cents in. Every "person" gets there and it won't be because someone else told them what to do. The learning pattern is for Experience, trial and error.
Back to top
 

All the world's a stage...whose stage?--that is the question!...or is it the answer...Who is on first.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #21 - May 27th, 2009 at 5:36pm
 
Non-dualism isn't about good vs. evil. It makes several contentions:

1. Only pure awareness exists.
2. Manifestation is an illusion that came to be by accident and it serves no purpose whatsoever.
3. There is no such thing as a soul because there is no such thing an an individual self. Only one self all by itself exists.

If you're hoping to be that one self, some being probably claimed dibbs on it long ago.

I used to buy into non-dual based systems of thought until I found out that they don't represent the truth.

We are one and many at the same time. What sense would the word "oneness" make if there was only one being? One being by itself is just one being by itself.  "Lonesomeness" would be a more appropriate word.

Consider the telepathic races Bruce Moen wrote about. On the one hand they were of one mind, on the other hand they weren't, because why would one being all by itself need to be telepathic?

Perhaps whatever we experience at the moment is real while we experience it, because what else is there?



Beau wrote on May 27th, 2009 at 5:13pm:
I say we're in a learning pattern and it is an illusion, but to not abide by the golden rule keeps one encased in this pattern. Non Dualism is ultimately what I believe. There is no good or evil outside of the learning patterns. I read this thread so I felt I should throw my two cents in. Every "person" gets there and it won't be because someone else told them what to do. The learning pattern is for Experience, trial and error.

Back to top
« Last Edit: May 27th, 2009 at 7:52pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
Beau
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1176
Greenville SC
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #22 - May 27th, 2009 at 5:56pm
 
Thanks for setting me straight on Non Dualism. I think we are a vast number of different dimensions of the same consciousness. But you know I have to admit that I just thought of that while reading your post  there Albert. I haven't really fleshed it out, so to speak. I think our goal here is to remember we are One, but I'm in no hurry to wake up alone, you know?
Back to top
 

All the world's a stage...whose stage?--that is the question!...or is it the answer...Who is on first.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #23 - May 29th, 2009 at 12:29pm
 
Beau:

One time I had an experience where it seemed as if I was all alone, and it was the worse feeling I ever had.  Imagine what it would be like to be all by yourself for all of eternity.  I don't care how much happiness and peace you feel, you might get lonely.


Beau wrote on May 27th, 2009 at 5:56pm:
Thanks for setting me straight on Non Dualism. I think we are a vast number of different dimensions of the same consciousness. But you know I have to admit that I just thought of that while reading your post  there Albert. I haven't really fleshed it out, so to speak. I think our goal here is to remember we are One, but I'm in no hurry to wake up alone, you know?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #24 - May 31st, 2009 at 10:09pm
 
Quote Recoverer:
"What sense would the word "oneness" make if there was only one being? One being by itself is just one being by itself.  "Lonesomeness" would be a more appropriate word. "

Sylvester isn't talking about one being. "He" is talking about that there is no one at all. "This is all there is", meaning an emptyness which is full from which phenomena arise, only present, no time, no space, no one. The sense to be "me" "having" an experience or doing something having a choice in time and space is just a story emerging in oneness. Persons don't see through it, and when it's seen through then there is no one. He emphasizes that this is as well a story, as language cannot give a good description, but a story closest to "what is seen". So he'd probably say "There is no one who could be lonesome".

I have nothing against what Sylvester tells. It could be as he says. It sounds familiar to me, as some details he mentioned I've seen as well. For example the noticing of unconditional love as the fullness to go along with an expanded state rather than the contracted state of a person. I couldn't make sense of the term "free will" before I've read Sylvester's books, so accepting that choice is an illusion is not an issue for me.

I can recommend his books. His second one, "The book of no one" is not needed when you only want to have the basics, many repetitions, but one gets a better grasp of what is meant by reading it in addition to "I hope you die soon". If you don't buy what he's saying, well, then it's just an entertaining read, for me anyways.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #25 - Jun 1st, 2009 at 1:28pm
 
I figure:

1. We start out with awareness and the ability to create, without our ability to create being utilized.

2. At some point we learn that we have the ability to create, and make use of this ability so we have something to be aware other than nothingness.

3. We experience what we create, it comes from us, just as our awareness comes from us.  Therefore, what we experience is real even if there was a time when nothing existed in a manifested way,  because if what we experience doesn't determine what our reality is, then what does? Somebody's nihilistic theory? I think not.  Also, just because we can tune into the moment when nothing was manifested, this doesn't mean that the moments when the creative aspects of our being created what they created don't exist. If non-dualists such as Sylvester would give time to seeing what these other moments are about I would give more weight to what they say, but I have found that they don't.

4. If time isn't real in the way people think of it, then the moment when nothing had become manifest and the many moments when many things have become manifested, are actually one. This being the case, how can the reality of manifestation be denied?  

If a guy like Sylvester actuall believes that nothing exists, then why does he even bother with talking to people? According to his premise, there is nobody to talk to.

I really don't see what value there is in telling people they don't exist, when they do in fact experience their life for better or worse.

Often the non-dual approach doesn't help a person grow in love. Instead it gets people to believe that life is pointless and should be negated. Nothing is pointless when you live according to love. Rather, life becomes quite meaningful.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:08pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #26 - Jun 1st, 2009 at 8:28pm
 
Hi Recoverer,
I'm pretending to be Richard Sylvester:

Recoverer:
1. We start out with awareness and the ability to create, without our ability to create being utilized.

R.S.:
No. There is no one. So no one started and no one has any abilities.

Recoverer:
2. At some point we learn that we have the ability to create, and make use of this ability so we have something to be aware other than nothingness.

R.S.:
There is no one to learn anything so there's nothing which can be learnt.

Recoverer:
3. We experience what we create, it comes from us, just as our awareness comes from us.  Therefore, what we experience is real even if there was a time when nothing existed in a manifested way,  because if what we experience doesn't determine what our reality is, then what does? Somebody's nihilistic theory? I think not.  Also, just because we can tune into the moment when nothing was manifested, this doesn't mean that the moments when the creative aspects of our being created what they created don't exist. If non-dualists such as Sylvester would give time to seeing what these other moments are about I would give more weight to what they say, but I have found that they don't.

R.S.:
There is no one, so no one can experience anything and no one can create anything. "Real" I call phenomena. Questions are asked, for example. There are stories, the story of time, the story of being a person. Persons perceive themselves to be in time. But there is no time. There are thoughts about the past and the future.

Recoverer:
4. If time isn't real in the way people think of it, then the moment when nothing had become manifest and the many moments when many things have become manifested, are actually one. This being the case, how can the reality of manifestation be denied?

R.S.:
There is no time, so there hasn't been any moments in the past. Of course, persons live within the story of time, but when the person drops away, all stories are seen through, and this is all there is. There's just oneness, phenomena arise. Nothing is happening though. There's no one there to whom anything could happen. There's only "is".

Recoverer:
If a guy like Sylvester actuall believes that nothing exists, then why does he even bother with talking to people? According to his premise, there is nobody to talk to.

R.S.:
Yes, there is no one who talks and no one who listens. There's talking and listening.

Recoverer:
I really don't see what value there is in telling people they don't exist, when they do in fact experience their life for better or worse.

The real R.S., quote:
"Yes it is purposeless. But so is everything else. Let's be clear about this, I can definetely confirm that you are wasting your time here. But of course you are also wasting your time anywhere else. In addition there's no you and no time which you could waste. So it doesn't matter. You might as well be here as anywhere else, but there's no choice about that. There is no possibility that this could be different to what it is."

Recoverer:
Often the non-dual approach doesn't help a person grow in love. Instead it gets people to believe that life is pointless and should be negated. Nothing is pointless when you live according to love. Rather, life becomes quite meaningful.

R.S.:
The mantra goes: Helpless, hopeless, meaningless. There's nothing to get, to learn, to achieve, or whatsoever. When the person comes back after awakening, you may be in the dark night of the soul. When the person drops away permanently, there's no one there to be bothered. All attempts to become an enlightened person are seen through. Instead it's noticed how awsome being is. The ivy climbing up the wall. A cup of tea. And it is seen that the emptiness in which all phenomena arise is full of unconditional love. A person never will be able to see this, yet might visit one guru after another to achieve full realisation. But the sense of separation will never leave until the person leaves. When there's no person, it's all just there. This is all there is, and it is sufficient.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

You see, debating about this is rather pointless. The Spooky-person has not dropped away, so I don't know if "it can be seen" or not. My point of view is, as long as there's a "me" we will never no the one and only truth, simply because when there's a "me", there's also a "there". Separation. Everything we know is our knowing. Every system we believe in is our system. What the truth is we don't know. Meanwhile, we do what we think is good, we believe what we think has to believed, we use the methods which we think are effective to let us lead a good, or even better life.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #27 - Jun 2nd, 2009 at 12:55pm
 
Spooky:

How can you pretend to be Sylvester if there's no Sylvester to imitate? Smiley

It is kind of contradictory when somebody says that reality doesn't exist in the manner we believe because everything is just a dream, because the very fact of how they make a comparison between a dream explanation and a non-dream explanation, suggests that they believe there is a level of reality other than a dream reality.

Perhaps, if a person chooses to view the World with the concept that the World is nothing but a dream he'll (or she'll) experience it accordingly, and if a person chooses to view the World as if it is a physical reality, he'll experience it accordingly.

I figure that neither viewpoint is accurate, because each viewpoint represents one half of a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Source being doesn't have to operate within such parameters. Source being simply makes use of its beingness-whatever that is-to make it so itself and many other beings do in fact experience what source being's energy projects.  Our experience proves that something that can be experienced does in fact exist, otherwise we wouldn't experience anything at all.

Perhaps it is a mistake to listen to a way of thinking that tries to divide things up into real or unreal.  Whatever we experience is real, even when we have a dream all by ourself, even though such a dream isn't shared with other beings.  The reason this World seems more solid than non-physical levels of reality, is partly because the energy it is composed of vibrates at a slower speed than higher levels of being. One way or the other, even if you call it mind stuff without understanding what "mind stuff" actually means, something makes it possible for energy to vibrate at different frequency levels.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 2nd, 2009 at 8:02pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #28 - Jun 2nd, 2009 at 8:47pm
 
Hi Recoverer,
when one makes certain assumptions, your way of thinking is logical. But only when these assumptions are not questioned.

Sylvester cannot be addressed by what you wrote.

Quote Recoverer:
"It is kind of contradictory when somebody says that reality doesn't exist in the manner we believe because everything is just a dream, because the very fact of how they make a comparison between a dream explanation and a non-dream explanation, suggests that they believe there is a level of reality other than a dream reality."

Sylvester uses dreams and dreaming to make some things clear, but not in the way you wrote. He says dream and reality is the same. Sometimes you dream, sometimes you're awake (in case of a person). What he calls his "awakening" is similar to awake within a dream realising that you are just a dream character within a dream- in his awakening experience for a moment "he" wasn't there anymore, so this character Richard Sylvester was just one phenomenon of many phenomena. Everything remained the same, yet everything was different of course.

Quote Recoverer:
"Perhaps, if a person chooses to view the World with the concept that the World is nothing but a dream he'll (or she'll) experience it accordingly, and if a person chooses to view the World as if it is a physical reality, he'll experience it accordingly."

Sylvester repeatedly says it is not a matter of choice. A person cannot chose to drop this very person. It happens or not. In fact, he says liberation is already there, only that persons don't see it, because due to that they appear to be persons, they see themselves separated, while they aren't, but this can only be seen when the person has vanished.

So, Sylvester doesn't divide the world into a real and an unreal part, but says there is "it is seen that there are no persons but only being"= oneness and within this, stories containing persons and the mind, so that, metaphorical, oneness prevents itself to be seen as such and instead it is seen that here is a person who perceives what is outside this person, therefore separation, while there is no separation.

Concerning spiritual seeking he says that nobody will ever become enlightened. Simply because as long as there is a person, there is separation and therefore longing for oneness and therefore continued search.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Oneness: Richard Sylvester's reality
Reply #29 - Jun 3rd, 2009 at 1:06pm
 
Spooky:

One thing gurus do is read each others books.  At some point somebody made the statement that even seeking for enlightenment will prevent a person from seeking the goal he or she seeks.

I can't say I agree with this way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned it is just intellectual doubletalk.  Until we have what we need to feel complete, our souls will keep seeking. The very fact of how there are many souls who seek, proves that there is more than one soul to do such seeking.

If you stop seeking you won't become non-existent.  You'll become like a soul that needs to be retrieved. In fact, as I've shared before, one night I helped retrieve the spirit of a lady who was into a nihilistic self-negating way of thinking, and her state of being felt quite dark. By trying to think herself out of existence, she separated herself from her higher self, love and God. After being connected to me her energy was cleansed of the nihilistic thought patterns that bound her so she could move on to the light.

One night I had a dream where I rode a bike (a symbol for moving in the direction of Christ consciousness) over a road, and underneath the road were souls who were stuck because they were stuck in a nihilistic self-negating non-dual belief system.

It is very possible that people such as Sylvester play a role in getting spirits stuck for however long.  Spooky, if you want to do back flips to defend what Sylvester advocates even though you have enough experience to know better, that is your choice. But you might want to reconsider.

If you're feeling stuck with your spiritual growth and Sylvester's way seems like an approach you can take, perhaps there is another option.  I figure an approach where more love comes into your life will work.  What significance does love play, if we believe there is nobody to share love with?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 3rd, 2009 at 3:00pm by recoverer »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.