independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)POOK said: fantasyislander said: the first century christians, Jesus first and immediate followers, followed his lead in not getting involved, even at the cost of their lives. it wasn't just about prophecy. BACK THAT UP CHAPTER AND VERSE i'm at work now, no bible here. i'll find it when i get home. (by the way, i think that the evidence of them laying down their lives is more in the history books, so you may be able to find something on the internet about that.) | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: POOK said: BACK THAT UP CHAPTER AND VERSE i'm at work now, no bible here. i'll find it when i get home. (by the way, i think that the evidence of them laying down their lives is more in the history books, so you may be able to find something on the internet about that.) GO HERE AT WORK ON INTERNET http://www.gospelcom.net P o o |/, P o o |\ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
POOK said: fantasyislander said: the first century christians, Jesus first and immediate followers, followed his lead in not getting involved, even at the cost of their lives. it wasn't just about prophecy. BACK THAT UP CHAPTER AND VERSE The Early Church and the World : “up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” In The New World’s Foundations in the Old: “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries by Augustus Neander: “The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, . . . and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.” The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, who reported: “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” “Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8) “They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, 1891, pp. 162-3. historian Will Durant wrote: “To a Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance belonged not to Caesar but to Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs seemed to the pagan a flight from civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian advised Christians to refuse military service; . . . Christians were exhorted by their leaders to avoid non-Christians, to shun their festival games as barbarous, and their theaters as stews of obscenity. . . . Christianity [when making converts] was charged with breaking up the home.”—Caesar and Christ, page 647. Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
P o o |/, P o o |\ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
POOK said: YEAH AND CRUSADE NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE SHOOTING ABORTION DOCTOR NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE BUT PEOPLE DO IT IN JESUS NAME AND THAT WRONG IF IT NOT IN BIBLE THEN IT JUST ANOTHER PERSON OPINION 
is that something to do with what ekalb posted above? what does this have to do with true christians remaining separate from the world by not getting involved in politics? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
POOK said: YEAH AND CRUSADE NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE SHOOTING ABORTION DOCTOR NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE BUT PEOPLE DO IT IN JESUS NAME AND THAT WRONG IF IT NOT IN BIBLE THEN IT JUST ANOTHER PERSON OPINION Oh come on Pook. How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe about history if you cant trust anything in history books written by historians? Many Christmas' ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ekalb101 said: POOK said: YEAH AND CRUSADE NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE SHOOTING ABORTION DOCTOR NOT SUPPORT BY BIBLE BUT PEOPLE DO IT IN JESUS NAME AND THAT WRONG IF IT NOT IN BIBLE THEN IT JUST ANOTHER PERSON OPINION Oh come on Pook. How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe about history if you cant trust anything in history books written by historians? POOK NOT DISPUTE HISTORY! POOK JUST SAY THAT UNLESS PRINCIPAL SUPPORT IN BIBLE MEANING UNLESS BIBLE SAY NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITIC THEN IT JUST SOME OPINION JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER PEOPLE DO IT IN GOD NAME NOT MEAN THAT WHAT GOD WANT THAT POOK POINT P o o |/, P o o |\ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
POOK said: ekalb101 said: Oh come on Pook. How do you choose what to believe and what not to believe about history if you cant trust anything in history books written by historians? POOK NOT DISPUTE HISTORY! POOK JUST SAY THAT UNLESS PRINCIPAL SUPPORT IN BIBLE MEANING UNLESS BIBLE SAY NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITIC THEN IT JUST SOME OPINION JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER PEOPLE DO IT IN GOD NAME NOT MEAN THAT WHAT GOD WANT THAT POOK POINT and that is an excellent point pook. i definitely agree that there have been alot of terrible things done "in God's name" that He wouldn't have, and didn't, approve of. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ekalb101 said: POOK said: [/b] Pook, you crack me up! Everytime I read one of your posts I hear the voice of Tarzan.  lol I hear Tarzan too! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: here it is, i found it in the other thread.
fantasyislander said: this is the full article published. if you read from that link, they conveniently highlight the portion they want you to read and ignore the surrounding sentences. when you read the whole thing, it is more understandable. here, see for yourself. (i bolded or italicized the parts that truly explain what a true christians stand is, and underlined the portions that were highlighted in the link.)
i remember reading this when it came out, and i didn't get the impression at all that the society was now saying it was ok to vote. hope this helps. I never voted in my life, even before I became a baptized JW. I never complained about the political stuff I just went on my merry way in life ignoring it . Time and time again man has proven to be incapable of solving this earths problem's. What is all of a sudden some man gonna make things better after all the past men couldn't handle the job either? That is why we don't even worry about the political system , we know it will be done away with once Jehovah's government takes over . You see everyone saying I got faith I got faith!!! What exactly do you have faith in ? Our faith is in the promises in the Bible and one of them is to replace this wicked government. Do you think Jehovahs Witnesses sit around complaining about this old system of things? Well we don't, we have awesome parties filled with joyous conversations of the New World and just how great it will be when all can be united as one family. No sickness, no death , no pain, plenty of food ,lots of love and no tears. PARADISE!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
fantasyislander said: POOK said: BACK THAT UP CHAPTER AND VERSE i'm at work now, no bible here. i'll find it when i get home. (by the way, i think that the evidence of them laying down their lives is more in the history books, so you may be able to find something on the internet about that.) www.Bible.com  2009: Mermaids and Dolphins... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AQUABOOGIE said: DavidSF said: But the world loves Prince!! Not all of them...There are alot of P fans mad at him because he is a JW! You are so right aqua, I went to his concert in LA and right behind me was a guy complaining about his not using bad language in his music and stated " none of us came here for this S---" as he spilled his beer all over everyone because he was so drunk! There were alot of witnesses at his concert also . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ekalb101 said: POOK said: BACK THAT UP CHAPTER AND VERSE The Early Church and the World : “up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” In The New World’s Foundations in the Old: “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries by Augustus Neander: “The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, . . . and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.” The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, who reported: “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” “Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8) “They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, 1891, pp. 162-3. historian Will Durant wrote: “To a Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance belonged not to Caesar but to Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs seemed to the pagan a flight from civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian advised Christians to refuse military service; . . . Christians were exhorted by their leaders to avoid non-Christians, to shun their festival games as barbarous, and their theaters as stews of obscenity. . . . Christianity [when making converts] was charged with breaking up the home.”—Caesar and Christ, page 647. All of the above is well and good but it does not really address the reasons why Christians did not serve, for the most part, in the Roman military. The reasons why there were few, if any, Christians in the Roman military are quite simple. First, just in case every one had forgotten, early Christians were persecuted by Rome. Thus it really make no sense that a early Christan would join the Roman army. Second, every year a Roman soldier had to swear an oath to the Emperor. The Emperor was thought to be a god. There is no way a Christian would take such an oath. Also, the names of others gods could be contained in the oath. Once again for this reason alone a Christian would not take the military oath. Thus it was not military service per say that was the problem but the oath one had to take. These types of oaths were also required for other offices in the Roman empire. This is also why there were few, if any, Jews in the Roman army. And one more thing. The quote at the start of this thread: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no[t] part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you. But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know Him that sent me." There is no word for "part" in the Greek text. It is not needed and does not belong. In fact it changes the meaning of the text. [Edited 12/13/05 16:19pm] "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: You are a part of this world. You're here. Deal with it.
People don't hate Christians because they believe in Christ, they hate them because they misrepresent his name. . [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 14:57:11 2004 by SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy] I am not part of your world if I were, your nickname,and your comments wouldn't offend me, but they do! I wonder if Jesus aproves of your foul language....somehow I don't think so. Misrepresent his name is right I agree with you there. Do you actually know the definition of Jesus? It means Jehovah is salvation. Actually, it just means salvation. Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua which just means salvation, not Jehovah is salvation | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
333 said: ekalb101 said: The Early Church and the World : “up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” In The New World’s Foundations in the Old: “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries by Augustus Neander: “The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, . . . and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.” The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, who reported: “A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” “Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8) “They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, 1891, pp. 162-3. historian Will Durant wrote: “To a Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance belonged not to Caesar but to Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs seemed to the pagan a flight from civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian advised Christians to refuse military service; . . . Christians were exhorted by their leaders to avoid non-Christians, to shun their festival games as barbarous, and their theaters as stews of obscenity. . . . Christianity [when making converts] was charged with breaking up the home.”—Caesar and Christ, page 647. All of the above is well and good but it does not really address the reasons why Christians did not serve, for the most part, in the Roman military. The reasons why there were few, if any, Christians in the Roman military are quite simple. First, just in case every one had forgotten, early Christians were persecuted by Rome. Thus it really make no sense that a early Christan would join the Roman army. Second, every year a Roman soldier have to swear an oath to the Emperor. The Emperor was thought to be a god. There is no way a Christian would take such an oath. Also, the names of others gods could be contained in the oath. Once again for this reason alone a Christian would not take the military oath. Thus it was not military service per say that was the problem but the oath one had to take. These types of oaths were also required for other offices in the Roman empire. This is also why there were few, if any, Jews in the Roman army. And one more thing. The quote at the start of this thread: "If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no[t] part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you. But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know Him that sent me." There is no word for "part" in the Greek text. It is not needed and does not belong. In fact it changes the meaning of the text. [This message was edited Sun Jul 18 0:48:11 2004 by 333]  The literal translation should be If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you
21: But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me . [This message was edited Wed Jul 21 22:50:56 2004 by Janfriend] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend,
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: You are a part of this world. You're here. Deal with it.
People don't hate Christians because they believe in Christ, they hate them because they misrepresent his name. . [This message was edited Tue Jul 13 14:57:11 2004 by SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy] I am not part of your world if I were, your nickname,and your comments wouldn't offend me, but they do! I wonder if Jesus aproves of your foul language....somehow I don't think so. Misrepresent his name is right I agree with you there. Do you actually know the definition of Jesus? It means Jehovah is salvation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: Janfriend,
Why not tell us the correct interpretation of these verses, and not merely what they do not mean? Do they mean anything at all, IYO? Your interpretations are kind of sapping the power and beauty out of these verses.  I don't understand what you just said. I was just giving the correct translation than what was posted originally | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: Heiress said: Janfriend,
Why not tell us the correct interpretation of these verses, and not merely what they do not mean? Do they mean anything at all, IYO? Your interpretations are kind of sapping the power and beauty out of these verses. I don't understand what you just said. I was just giving the correct translation than what was posted originally read the way you interpreted the verses, they say essentially nothing at all... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: Janfriend said: I don't understand what you just said. I was just giving the correct translation than what was posted originally read the way you interpreted the verses, they say essentially nothing at all... I'm not interpreting, I'm giving the proper translation from Greek to English | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: Heiress said: read the way you interpreted the verses, they say essentially nothing at all... I'm not interpreting, I'm giving the proper translation from Greek to English They do say quite a bit the way that Janfriend translated them. IMO, the translation is saying that if Jesus' followers were everyone, then the world would have no hatred of Jesus' followers, because they all would be. Because Jesus chose them from the world, they ( Christians, the disciples, whatever) are no longer "part" of the world, but in the world. Because people did not understand where Jesus was coming from, that He was the Son of God, they could not understand the disciples (or Christians) and in their misunderstanding hated them instead. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on progress of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."-MLK, Jr. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said: Show me a true Christian and I'll eat my hat. All of us fall short and if we can accept that, we'll get along much better.
You are sounding like a true Christian.....where is your hat???  A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on progress of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."-MLK, Jr. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bluesbaby said: Janfriend said: I'm not interpreting, I'm giving the proper translation from Greek to English They do say quite a bit the way that Janfriend translated them. IMO, the translation is saying that if Jesus' followers were everyone, then the world would have no hatred of Jesus' followers, because they all would be. Because Jesus chose them from the world, they ( Christians, the disciples, whatever) are no longer "part" of the world, but in the world. Because people did not understand where Jesus was coming from, that He was the Son of God, they could not understand the disciples (or Christians) and in their misunderstanding hated them instead. hmm, but that's how i interpreted the verse.
so i guess we agree!
agreement again. 
what is this forum coming to? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yxl1 said: If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is it's own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you. 15:21 But they will do all these things against you on account of my name, because they do not know HIM THAT SENT ME>(JEHOVAH).
Just to get the WTS stance on the above quote: Watchtower November 15, 2001 p.19 14 Anointed Christians are like alien residents living in tents apart from this system of things. Not even a plague draws near their tent. Whether our hope is heavenly or earthly, we are no part of the world, and we are not infected by such spiritually deadly plagues as its immorality, materialism, false religion and worship of the 'wild beast' and it's 'image', the United Nations.
But look! The WTS joined the United nations secretly for about 10 years and then were exposed by the Guardian newspaper(UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk...05,00.html under the heading Do you realize that your info is 100 % innaccurate about the United Nations...Are you sure your not talking about the silent lambs? You know the group that broke off from Jehovahs orginization to start their own (cause they can't handle not having more then 1 person running things .that is because they want all the glory) They call themselves JW but prove false to their actions. They hold all of the beliefs except the ones that require effort like going out to make deciples. Jehovahs witnesses have no relations to thr UN Period. Man yx1 you were a JW a brother you know it is the truth. Why do I see you acting like you are posting sincere questions on other topics then you try and dig up untruths on JW like this ? This is absolutely not true about the UN and you know it. Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried Sect accused of hypocrisy over association with organisation it has demonised. The WTS submitted a removal from the UN after it became known. Word reached the brothers and sisters who contacted the UN, thus prompting them the UN) to produce the following: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngo...htower.pdf The world doesnt hate you because you're "true christians". To be honest, the world couldnt really care less about you - you're just not that important. But before you start claiming serperation from the world, may I suggest you find out who your leaders are in bed with? yxl1 [This message was edited Wed Jul 14 7:30:33 2004 by yxl1] [This message was edited Wed Jul 14 7:31:16 2004 by yxl1] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Janfriend said: zkp2003 said: I am not part of your world if I were, your nickname,and your comments wouldn't offend me, but they do! I wonder if Jesus aproves of your foul language....somehow I don't think so. Misrepresent his name is right I agree with you there. Do you actually know the definition of Jesus? It means Jehovah is salvation. Actually, it just means salvation. Jesus' name in Hebrew is Yeshua which just means salvation, not Jehovah is salvation Do a little more research it means Jehovah is salvation. If you need resources I will post them, however if you really want to know you will find them on your own. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
zkp2003 said: yxl1 said: But look! The WTS joined the United nations secretly for about 10 years and then were exposed by the Guardian newspaper(UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk...05,00.html under the heading Do you realize that your info is 100 % innaccurate about the United Nations...Are you sure your not talking about the silent lambs? You know the group that broke off from Jehovahs orginization to start their own (cause they can't handle not having more then 1 person running things .that is because they want all the glory) They call themselves JW but prove false to their actions. They hold all of the beliefs except the ones that require effort like going out to make deciples. Jehovahs witnesses have no relations to thr UN Period. Man yx1 you were a JW a brother you know it is the truth. Why do I see you acting like you are posting sincere questions on other topics then you try and dig up untruths on JW like this ? This is absolutely not true about the UN and you know it. Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried Sect accused of hypocrisy over association with organisation it has demonised. The WTS submitted a removal from the UN after it became known. Word reached the brothers and sisters who contacted the UN, thus prompting them the UN) to produce the following: http://www.un.org/dpi/ngo...htower.pdf The world doesnt hate you because you're "true christians". To be honest, the world couldnt really care less about you - you're just not that important. But before you start claiming serperation from the world, may I suggest you find out who your leaders are in bed with? exactly you said it ". To be honest, the world couldnt really care less about you - you're just not that important. you see how the world, including yourself feels about JW...tell me what other religion is hated as this one? If I were any other religion no one would have a problem with that. But that just reassures me of my faith in Jehovah and his word the Bible. He said many would not pay attention to the healthful teachings. yxl1 [This message was edited Wed Jul 14 7:30:33 2004 by yxl1] [This message was edited Wed Jul 14 7:31:16 2004 by yxl1] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried Sect accused of hypocrisy over association with organisation it has demonised.
Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great and extinguishes the small. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OOOOO, didya hear, WMD's were abducted by aliens and can be found on the moon right now. It's true. Honest. I read it right here on the internet.
Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great and extinguishes the small. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Actually, in all fairness there is an element of truth to it. It seems that a well meaning brother at the Branch Office joined the UN Library back in 1991 with a view to having access to books and documents for research purposes. But in 1992 the UN changed their conditions for being a member of the library. It would now mean supporting the role of the UN, something that we as true christians would never knowingly agree to. The brothers were unaware of this change or it's implications until it was flagged up to them in 2001. As a result they acted promptly to remove themselves from the UN's books. Simple as! Distance is to love, as a breeze is to a flame…
…it enkindles the great and extinguishes the small. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
couldUB said: Actually, in all fairness there is an element of truth to it. It seems that a well meaning brother at the Branch Office joined the UN Library back in 1991 with a view to having access to books and documents for research purposes. But in 1992 the UN changed their conditions for being a member of the library. It would now mean supporting the role of the UN, something that we as true christians would never knowingly agree to. The brothers were unaware of this change or it's implications until it was flagged up to them in 2001. As a result they acted promptly to remove themselves from the UN's books. Simple as!
Thanks for clearing that up couldub That is quite different then joining the UN. I can see why they want access to the library for research purposes, but never would JW be associated with them on a political level. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
