The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stuu

New member
* The UB is not a science reference manual written for scientist, it's revelation for spiritualist.
So you are retracting your claim that the UB should be taken as having something to offer science?

* It has been my experience with you here and on other forums that when spirituality is discussed you refer to faith as imaginary.
Please explain the link between spirituality and faith. Please cite my post where I claim that faith is imaginary. I am very careful with these terms; I’m not convinced you are.

You lack spiritual perception. Former atheist describe this state of mind prior to the spiritual awakening or rebirth.
Please explain what you think spiritual perception is, and the basis by which you judge my lack of it, by comparison with some person (or persons, your grammar is ambiguous) I’ve never met that you claim provide(s) the example. I think you’re talking platitudes again. I can define spirituality for you. Can you define it for me? You first, since you brought it up.

* If the authors of the UB had NOT told us that they were using over 1000 human sources then yes< I would agree with you that they stole something.
Who are these humans, and what contributions are they acknowledging? That is what proper respect of intellectual property involves.

"The gas-contraction nucleuses of the other ten planets soon reached the stage of solidification and so began to draw to themselves increasing quantities of the meteoric matter circulating in near-by space.
Wrong. That's not how the planets in our solar system formed. The meteorite matter added is insignificant to the formation of any planet.

The worlds of the solar system thus had a double origin: nucleuses of gas condensation later on augmented by the capture of enormous quantities of meteors. Indeed they still continue to capture meteors, but in greatly lessened numbers."
…and wrong. The only part that is even vaguely right is that meteorites still fall to earth. But it doesn’t even mention the more interesting contribution of water from comets.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

0:12.11 In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

0:12.12 Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.

0:12.13 We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.
Halfway between criminal and meaningless.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Science has no justification to state that there is not an eternal source for the material universe. We aren't telling science they need to believe us. This sin't a science book.
Who cares what you call it? It makes testable scientific claims that turn out to be wrong. Other scientific claims it stole without giving credit to the person who made the discovery, in any of those cases.

In regards to "external sources" it doesn't matter, because it is a fact that it has stolen human ideas from humans with names, and it concedes that point, as you have so painfully explained in your post above. You would have the burden of proof to show that in fact there was an earlier claim to the discovery of a particular scientific idea or principle. Does the UB take on the burden of proof? No. It baldly asserts the existence of its Imaginary Beings and the prior knowledge of those scientific claims.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Stuu,

Yawn.....

Please explain the link between spirituality and faith. Please cite my post where I claim that faith is imaginary. I am very careful with these terms; I’m not convinced you are.


From " Moving Beyond Faith", formerly "Finding Believers"

Forum:

The Urantia Revelation

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2008,

..."tell others around them about the joy of knowing an imaginary friend in the sky are"....


Atheism & Agnosticism / Materialism, It's Vulnerability, Christianity's Problem, The Future

February 26, 2008, 01:04 PM

...... of salt. Quote I am almost certain that your god is imaginary. I am always keen to be ......


TOL

children are molested TWICE as often in NON-Catholic "churches"
Views: 1,211
Posted By Stuu

I always say love the christian but oppose the...

I always say love the christian but oppose the christianity that makes him say silly things about Imaginary Friends he can't show to exist.

TOL

August 2nd, 2012, 03:50 AM

As a person not afflicted with the delusion of belief in Imaginary Supernatural Friends, it means the event beginning with the cessation of brain waves indicating death of the brain and therefore death in general, or

there are more Stuu, but I have a life. People here know your BS!


You don't cite any of the sources for your claims Stuu and I could'nt care any less! I don't need them, I don't assume that by using their conclusions that somehow you are taking credit for having made the findings. The UB DOES NOT take credit for the findings, it says that it will arrange "human concepts" from over a thousand people. The UB arranges those concepts into its revelation.


"Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve."


Those humans, whose source material was selected as a basis for the revelation, are honored by the selection itself. The celestials use an entirely different form of language structure that would not work.

I'm busy.


Caino
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
Stuu,

Yawn.....
Sorry, are we keeping you awake?


From " Moving Beyond Faith", formerly "Finding Believers"

Forum:

The Urantia Revelation

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2008,

..."tell others around them about the joy of knowing an imaginary friend in the sky are"....


Atheism & Agnosticism / Materialism, It's Vulnerability, Christianity's Problem, The Future

February 26, 2008, 01:04 PM

...... of salt. Quote I am almost certain that your god is imaginary. I am always keen to be ......


TOL

children are molested TWICE as often in NON-Catholic "churches"
Views: 1,211
Posted By Stuu

I always say love the christian but oppose the...

I always say love the christian but oppose the christianity that makes him say silly things about Imaginary Friends he can't show to exist.

TOL

August 2nd, 2012, 03:50 AM

As a person not afflicted with the delusion of belief in Imaginary Supernatural Friends, it means the event beginning with the cessation of brain waves indicating death of the brain and therefore death in general, or



there are more Stuu, but I have a life. People here know your BS!
Flattered, I'm sure.

Now, perhaps you can show me where I posted that FAITH IS IMAGINARY.

I don't believe it is, and I never said it was anywhere, and you didn't give a single example of it.

Hope that fruitless search didn't take you too long.

You don't cite any of the sources for your claims Stuu
My name is at the bottom of all my posts. I am claiming those points as original, which is what they are. I do cite my sources when the claim is not an original one.

and I could'nt care any less!
Evidently.

The UB DOES NOT take credit for the findings, it says that it will arrange "human concepts" from over a thousand people. The UB arranges those concepts into its revelation.
Let me help you rephrase that: "...it will arrange "human concepts" stolen from over a thousand people. "

"Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve."
The fairies at the bottom of my garden disagree.

Note the word "revealed" there. You are suggesting it says "retold". That is not what "revealed" means. This is passing off other's work as original knowledge without taking on the burden of proof of that claim. In other words, the theft of intellectual property.

Those humans, whose source material was selected as a basis for the revelation, are honored by the selection itself. The celestials use an entirely different form of language structure that would not work.
I see. Rutherford should be grateful that his work was stolen and subsequently "revealed" by a crackpot's "mysterious" neighbour who was channeling Imaginary Space Beings at the time.

I'm busy.
By all means, don't waste your precious time posting here then.

Stuart
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Sorry, are we keeping you awake?


Flattered, I'm sure.

Now, perhaps you can show me where I posted that FAITH IS IMAGINARY.

I don't believe it is, and I never said it was anywhere, and you didn't give a single example of it.

Hope that fruitless search didn't take you too long.


My name is at the bottom of all my posts. I am claiming those points as original, which is what they are. I do cite my sources when the claim is not an original one.


Evidently.


Let me help you rephrase that: "...it will arrange "human concepts" stolen from over a thousand people. "


The fairies at the bottom of my garden disagree.

Note the word "revealed" there. You are suggesting it says "retold". That is not what "revealed" means. This is passing off other's work as original knowledge without taking on the burden of proof of that claim. In other words, the theft of intellectual property.


I see. Rutherford should be grateful that his work was stolen and subsequently "revealed" by a crackpot's "mysterious" neighbour who was channeling Imaginary Space Beings at the time.


By all means, don't waste your precious time posting here then.

Stuart


I figured you would try to wiggle out of the evidence using some sort of legalistic bs. You are a dishonest Internet troll Stuu, reasonable people can read your hateful post all over the Internet and draw their own conclusion about your careful choice of words.

My posting here is for reasonable people who have an interest in spirituality and philosophy, a place to discuss the UB. Isn't there an atheistic science forum somewhere that you can argue with people and discuss how neat it is that the universe invented itself?

"Never argue with a pig, you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it." not sourced LOL!



Caino
 

dingodile

New member
From Dictionary.com

Plagiarism 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.

Authorization to use text written by someone else involves getting permission. Did the author of the Urantia Book get permission? Crediting the original author entails identifying him or her. Does the Urantia Book identify its sources? If the answer to these questions is no, then it's plagiarism by any sane legal or moral standard.

If the blanket statement quoted in this thread is all there is, then it's plagiarism. Suppose you were to write a book yourself in which you borrow text liberally from other sources, without permission. In the book you include the statement, "In this book I make liberal use of textual material written by others." That statement would in no way deflect or refute the charge of plagiarism.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
From Dictionary.com

Plagiarism 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.

Authorization to use text written by someone else involves getting permission. Did the author of the Urantia Book get permission? Crediting the original author entails identifying him or her. Does the Urantia Book identify its sources? If the answer to these questions is no, then it's plagiarism by any sane legal or moral standard.

If the blanket statement quoted in this thread is all there is, then it's plagiarism. Suppose you were to write a book yourself in which you borrow text liberally from other sources, without permission. In the book you include the statement, "In this book I make liberal use of textual material written by others." That statement would in no way deflect or refute the charge of plagiarism.



The UB does not claim the sources as it's "own" creation, it simply uses thoughts in new arrangements like you use words that you didn't invent to communicate in your post.


Note: To date there has not been one single law suit filed by any authors or the estates of authors charging plagiarism seeking compensatory damages from the Urantia Foundation. There was a big lawsuit to break the copyright but I don't know of any claiming plagiarism. This is really all about discrediting the source so as to deny what is being said. And btw, there have been scientific discoveries made that were first mentioned by the UB, however UB readers have no desire to go after the scientist who merely validated the UB.

Have you ever actually looked at the "source material" parallels being done by Matthew Block? Some of it seems to be a bit of a stretch to me but, if you haven’t then you should. I chose one example; you can certainly do more yourself.


http://www.squarecircles.com/urantiabooksourcestudies/pdf/paper088workinprogress.pdf


I'm trying to recall where the Bible sources the writers of all of it's bits of wisdom, Psalms etc. Jesus used some common sayings but failed to source them. Hummm.

Come to think of it, has any other human had the thoughts that you have articulated in your post? Could Matthew Block find the same sort of flimsy parallels?






Caino
 

dingodile

New member
The UB does not claim the sources as it's "own" creation, it simply uses thoughts in new arrangements like you use words that you didn't invent to communicate in your post.

From what I've read, this is less than accurate. The UB fails to demarcate the appropriated language from its own original language, just as plagiarizing students insert copied text into their own paragraphs, without showing where they are doing so. This is plagiarism.

Note: To date there has not been one single law suit filed by any authors or the estates of authors charging plagiarism seeking compensatory damages from the Urantia Foundation. There was a big lawsuit to break the copyright but I don't know of any claiming plagiarism. This is really all about discrediting the source so as to deny what is being said. And btw, there have been scientific discoveries made that were first mentioned by the UB, however UB readers have no desire to go after the scientist who merely validated the UB.

The fact that no one has sued in no way entails that plagiarism didn't take place. That's no defense. As for those trying to break the copyright, I suppose they didn't want the book to cease being published altogether, which is a possible outcome of a plagiarism charge. The plaintiff, if successful, could get an injunction requiring the publisher to cease and desist from continuing to publish the plagiarized material. Maybe that's not what they wanted.

Have you ever actually looked at the "source material" parallels being done by Matthew Block? Some of it seems to be a bit of a stretch to me but, if you haven’t then you should. I chose one example; you can certainly do more yourself.

I have now. From what I can see, some is loose, and some is near-verbatim. In many cases, there's no question that long stretches of published works were used as templates, with paraphrases, additions, and deletions along the way. Such use without permission or crediting sources easily satisfies the legal and ethical criteria of plagiarism.

I'm trying to recall where the Bible sources the writers of all of it's bits of wisdom, Psalms etc. Jesus used some common sayings but failed to source them. Hummm.

Copyright didn't exist in those days, and the sources used were indeed commonly known, so much so that there could be an expectation that they would be recognized. That was the whole point of saying things such as "Thus fulfilling the scriptures" or "As the prophet said" and so on. In contrast, the Urantia Book used sources that were new, under copyright protection of law, and that could not be reasonably regarded as common knowledge.

Come to think of it, has any other human had the thoughts that you have articulated in your post? Could Matthew Block find the same sort of flimsy parallels?

There is a difference between thoughts or ideas and actual verbal expressions.

In any case, the main point is clear and unrefuted by anything you've said. The Urantia Book plagiarizes various sources. It uses them without permission, without demarcating them from unplagiarized text, and without crediting or identifying those sources. If that isn't plagiarism, nothing is.
 

Lost Comet

New member
From what I've read, this is less than accurate. The UB fails to demarcate the appropriated language from its own original language, just as plagiarizing students insert copied text into their own paragraphs, without showing where they are doing so. This is plagiarism.



The fact that no one has sued in no way entails that plagiarism didn't take place. That's no defense. As for those trying to break the copyright, I suppose they didn't want the book to cease being published altogether, which is a possible outcome of a plagiarism charge. The plaintiff, if successful, could get an injunction requiring the publisher to cease and desist from continuing to publish the plagiarized material. Maybe that's not what they wanted.



I have now. From what I can see, some is loose, and some is near-verbatim. In many cases, there's no question that long stretches of published works were used as templates, with paraphrases, additions, and deletions along the way. Such use without permission or crediting sources easily satisfies the legal and ethical criteria of plagiarism.



Copyright didn't exist in those days, and the sources used were indeed commonly known, so much so that there could be an expectation that they would be recognized. That was the whole point of saying things such as "Thus fulfilling the scriptures" or "As the prophet said" and so on. In contrast, the Urantia Book used sources that were new, under copyright protection of law, and that could not be reasonably regarded as common knowledge.



There is a difference between thoughts or ideas and actual verbal expressions.

In any case, the main point is clear and unrefuted by anything you've said. The Urantia Book plagiarizes various sources. It uses them without permission, without demarcating them from unplagiarized text, and without crediting or identifying those sources. If that isn't plagiarism, nothing is.
So? None of this invalidates the truths it presents nor is it anything the book denies. Quite the contrary, it flat-out says it uses the highest ideas of the (Urantia) realm.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
So? None of this invalidates the truths it presents nor is it anything the book denies. Quite the contrary, it flat-out says it uses the highest ideas of the (Urantia) realm.

This has been shared repeatedly, - the ideals, values, meanings and concepts of a religious/philosophical nature are consistently presented in Papers, yet those who have not familiarized themselves with them, may remain ignorant of such principles and their contribution to the knowledge of man's spiritual potential and the prospect of spiritual evolution.

Again, nitpickers miss the forest for the trees, but that is further obscured if one already has an aversion towards 'God' or assumes an 'atheist' philosophy.


pj
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
From what I've read, this is less than accurate. The UB fails to demarcate the appropriated language from its own original language, just as plagiarizing students insert copied text into their own paragraphs, without showing where they are doing so. This is plagiarism.



The fact that no one has sued in no way entails that plagiarism didn't take place. That's no defense. As for those trying to break the copyright, I suppose they didn't want the book to cease being published altogether, which is a possible outcome of a plagiarism charge. The plaintiff, if successful, could get an injunction requiring the publisher to cease and desist from continuing to publish the plagiarized material. Maybe that's not what they wanted.



I have now. From what I can see, some is loose, and some is near-verbatim. In many cases, there's no question that long stretches of published works were used as templates, with paraphrases, additions, and deletions along the way. Such use without permission or crediting sources easily satisfies the legal and ethical criteria of plagiarism.



Copyright didn't exist in those days, and the sources used were indeed commonly known, so much so that there could be an expectation that they would be recognized. That was the whole point of saying things such as "Thus fulfilling the scriptures" or "As the prophet said" and so on. In contrast, the Urantia Book used sources that were new, under copyright protection of law, and that could not be reasonably regarded as common knowledge.



There is a difference between thoughts or ideas and actual verbal expressions.

In any case, the main point is clear and unrefuted by anything you've said. The Urantia Book plagiarizes various sources. It uses them without permission, without demarcating them from unplagiarized text, and without crediting or identifying those sources. If that isn't plagiarism, nothing is.

I do gather that the celestials might not be concerned with our man made rules of self accreditation of ideas and ideals in the created universe of our origin. For the sake of argument, let’s say it's plagiarism as defined by our civil codes of Law, in this age, does that mean the UB would be any less true in it’s organization of the thoughts of humans?

Caino
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Challenge to actually read the UB

Challenge to actually read the UB

From Dictionary.com

Plagiarism 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.

Authorization to use text written by someone else involves getting permission. Did the author of the Urantia Book get permission? Crediting the original author entails identifying him or her. Does the Urantia Book identify its sources? If the answer to these questions is no, then it's plagiarism by any sane legal or moral standard.

If the blanket statement quoted in this thread is all there is, then it's plagiarism. Suppose you were to write a book yourself in which you borrow text liberally from other sources, without permission. In the book you include the statement, "In this book I make liberal use of textual material written by others." That statement would in no way deflect or refute the charge of plagiarism.

I would recommend newbies to the UB to read the first 10 or 12 Papers (can also listen to audio files along with reading) beginning with Foreward Here if you have not done so. It covers the essentials of its cosmic philosophy and theology regarding the nature of God and man's relationship to Deity and more. This gives a primary introduction to life and the purpose of creation as we know it.

Have you read at least the first 10 Papers with an open mind?



pj
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
one accepts what has value to him........if such is recognized

one accepts what has value to him........if such is recognized

I do gather that the celestials might not be concerned with our man made rules of self accreditation of ideas and ideals in the created universe of our origin. For the sake of argument, let’s say it's plagiarism as defined by our civil codes of Law, in this age, does that mean the UB would be any less true in it’s organization of the thoughts of humans?

Caino

Good point, for the value of the material stands using human knowledge of that time period (early 20th century) as a base, from which to elaborate from. Anyone with a religious or philosophical interest in the nature of God, the cosmos, man, his animal origins and divine potential in partnership with God can find insight and inspiration from the commentary within.

The issue of material science/astronomy will fare on its own, however evaluated or proved, but the cosmology, philosophical consistency and theology of the papers confirm all the extant religious traditions and knowledge of man...further expanding in a more detailed record of Jesus and his ministry. Being a student of universal spirituality, I recognize this as being a disclosure of epochal significance from a particular group of celestials whether hailing from the 'inner realms' or 'cosmic heavens'. You can take it or leave it. I draw knowledge from all sources of interest and worth, since 'God' alone is the First Source and Center of all reality.


The UB Fellowship



pj
 

dingodile

New member
I do gather that the celestials might not be concerned with our man made rules of self accreditation of ideas and ideals in the created universe of our origin. For the sake of argument, lets say it's plagiarism as defined by our civil codes of Law, in this age, does that mean the UB would be any less true in its organization of the thoughts of humans?

Why assume? The Urantia Book is plagiarized, by any meaningful standard. It's not necessary to assume what is known to be the case.

So the question is, does the fact of it's plagiarism make its contents less true? Possibly. It depends on whether you think celestial authors would honor our legal and moral rules. If you do, then the book's claims of celestial authorship are put in doubt. If you don't, then questions are raised about the moral probity of the authors, be they mortal or celestial.

Does the Urantia Book contain truths that could not be conveyed without plagiarizing?

It's been a while since I read it, but I did read all of it. That's why I visited this thread. But I'll move along. I'm sure you don't want to spend more time on this topic.
 

Aimiel

New member
Why do you stand gazing into darkness, expecting to find The Light?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

If God were in the Urantia papers, they'd line up with Scripture and they don't, obviously. The wrong god is found in there. God can be found only when you seek and search for Him with all of your heart. Hiding from Him by chasing false gods doesn't count.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
It's been a while since I read it, but I did read all of it. That's why I visited this thread. But I'll move along. I'm sure you don't want to spend more time on this topic.

See former post to you Here. Without a knowledge of what the Papers actually teach, your analysis is less than perfect.

If you did read it, you would probably remember significant aspects of the teaching, philosophy and cosmology, especially the first 12 Papers which is the core-context and cosmology of the entire revelation in essence. The Papers dealing with certain aspects of history/science/astromony later on in the succession of the papers were taken from human sources and paraphrased/expanded on. The commentaries on religious experience and man's eternal destiny relative to evolutionary progress and divine partnership, remain consistent and inspiring.


pj
 

Stuu

New member
I figured you would try to wiggle out of the evidence using some sort of legalistic bs. You are a dishonest Internet troll Stuu, reasonable people can read your hateful post all over the Internet and draw their own conclusion about your careful choice of words.

My posting here is for reasonable people who have an interest in spirituality and philosophy, a place to discuss the UB. Isn't there an atheistic science forum somewhere that you can argue with people and discuss how neat it is that the universe invented itself?

"Never argue with a pig, you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it." not sourced LOL!



Caino
I acknowledge your abject concession of defeat on the points I have made, as evidenced by your complete lack of relevant counter-arguments.

I must protest regarding your No True Scotsman claims and spirituality. My spiritual experience is based on things that I can demonstrate to be true. Yours appears to be based on a crackpot's neighbour channeling space beings.

Each to their own, of course.

Stuart
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top