a sceptic will not recognize his Creator when He reveals Himself

Maartenn100 said:
Totally agree with Annnnoid about the fact that we have no clue at all
Click to expand...

Of course you do. You're both anti-intellectualists who use your own ignorance not only to justify whatever it is you believe, but to project that ignorance onto others to claim that other people don't know as well, even when that's patently false.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Totally agree with Annnnoid about the fact that we have no clue at all:
I don't believe that one scientists who talks about the origine of the universe, really understand his own phrases. " a singularity pops up into existence, surounded by nothingness, not even space, expanding into nothingness. Before the existence of this singularity was no time and no space. This singularity was infinitely dense (contradictory in the terms) etc.

Do you really think that the scientist who got his Nobel Prize because of these statements understands one single bit of what he is trying to communicate?
Click to expand...

Maartenn, the fact that you don't understand what he's saying doesn't mean he doesn't- the limits you impose on yourself by your own ignorance don't impose on him. And, to make it really ironic- I don't really think that you understand one little bit of what you're trying to communicate.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
. the entire reason that science has progressed and flourished so much in all that time, is precisely because it has been so phenomenally successful at explaining the world around us ...
Click to expand...

I brought that up because I think it's going to be the weak point of their argument. If we're so open minded that we believe everything is true without even challenging it, as long as it's not science based, we'll soon be swamped in worldviews. Few will fit with others, and we'll need some way to sort out what's accurate and what isn't.

At that point, the scientific method will work as it always has to sort things out. Predictions can be tested. Claims can be falsified or not. We may not know everything, but we'll at least know that divining with intestines is no more accurate than divining with Tarot cards, and virgins don't change the timing of volcanic eruptions in the long run.

Eventually, the usefulness of the method will become clear.
 
Last edited:
wea said:
(bio)linguistics, theoretical computer science, automata theory are sciences. I'd say Chomsky is most definetely (or anyway has been) a great scientist.
By the way, annnnoid, it's ironic you cite the atheist N.Chomsky in a thread on creator revealing himself, still waiting for "What is your training and professional experience in science and/or the scientific method?" as JayUtah asked
Click to expand...


Wikipedia describes Chomsky's field of academic expertise like this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Avram Noam Chomsky*(/ˈnoʊm*ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American*linguist,*philosopher,*cognitive scientist,historian,*logician,*social critic, and*political activist. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in*analytic philosophy, and one of the founders of the field of*cognitive science. He has spent more than half a century at the*Massachusetts Institute of Technology*(MIT), where he is*Institute Professor*Emeritus, and is the author of over 100 books on topics such as*linguistics,*war,*politics, and*mass media. Ideologically, he aligns with*anarcho-syndicalism*and*libertarian socialism.


That is not remotely the sort of "scientist" who is qualified to talk about the sort of claims that Jodie was just making about the nature of the Big Bang and fundamental particles produced by that BB process, let alone her insistence about what cannot be known about a hypothetical "time" prior to the inflationary stage of the BB. That's a very different type of scientist ... not Noam Chomosky at all (whatever he may, or may not, wish chip in as his two-penneth about it).
 
Maartenn100 said:
I don't believe that one scientists who talks about the origine of the universe, really understand his own phrases. " a singularity pops up into existence, surounded by nothingness, not even space, expanding into nothingness. Before the existence of this singularity was no time and no space. This singularity was infinitely dense (contradictory in the terms) etc.

Do you really think that the scientist who got his Nobel Prize because of these statements understands one single bit of what he is trying to communicate?
Click to expand...

Why? What's wrong with those sentences? Other than you not understanding their meaning, I mean.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Totally agree with Annnnoid about the fact that we have no clue at all:
I don't believe that one scientists who talks about the origine of the universe, really understand his own phrases. " a singularity pops up into existence, surounded by nothingness, not even space, expanding into nothingness. Before the existence of this singularity was no time and no space. This singularity was infinitely dense (contradictory in the terms) etc.

Do you really think that the scientist who got his Nobel Prize because of these statements understands one single bit of what he is trying to communicate?
Click to expand...


OK, well posts like the above just go to show why, sadly, it is a complete waste of time trying to have any kind of intelligent educated discussion with the NDE-OBE side here. :(
 
Pup said:
I brought that up because I think it's going to be the weak point of their argument. If we're so open minded that we believe everything is true without even challenging it, as long as it's not science based, we'll soon be swamped in worldviews. Few will fit with others, and we'll need some way to sort out what's accurate and what isn't.

At that point, the scientific method will work as it always has to sort things out. Predictions can be tested. Claims can be falsified or not. We may not know everything, but we'll at least know that divining with intestines is no more accurate than divining with Tarot cards, and virgins don't change the timing of volcanic eruptions in the long run.

Eventually, the usefulness of the method will become clear.
Click to expand...


Oh sure. I know what you are getting at. And I agree.

But why do you think there are so many people, even on a "sceptics" forum like this, who still do not accept that "the usefulness of the method will (has, long ago) become clear."?
 
IanS said:
But why do you think there are so many people, even on a "sceptics" forum like this, who still do not accept that "the usefulness of the method will (has, long ago) become clear."?
Click to expand...

We'd probably be appalled to see an unfiltered count, not from a skeptics forum. Emotion based thinking is incredibly attractive. People want to believe a creator is in charge, we won't die, good will be rewarded and bad punished, and we can tell the future.

One can even see how we're hardwired for the benefits of seeking agency behind events when it's there, trying to control events, feeling comfortable in a society with a leader over us, trying to avoid death.

Of course the scientific method can be harnessed for the same purposes, especially control following better understanding, but I think the major difference is that one has to accept the outcome regardless. The scientific method does not produce a story designed to please humans, that can be rewritten if it's too troublesome, so it can be upsetting and uncomfortable.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, that is kinda why I'm at least trying to go at it from another direction.

Thing is, while of course the skeptical atheist argument is correct, the thing that kinda nags me more is that even if you grant the existence of gods and all, the theist arguments are STILL utter nonsense.

Basically the most common theist argument is of the form of: <weak-sauce argument for some original maker or supernatural aspect> THEREFORE don't be teh ghey. Because that's what it boils down to, when one then goes some form of "and that is what we call God." (To borrow Aquinas's phrase.) There are a whole bunch of other attributes that are suddenly introduced by identifying it with any particular god, that just aren't in the set that was even invalidly supported. It's just pulled out of the ass.

I mean, let's even grant that there are gods, and they're unfathomable, for the scope of this exercise. Let's even grant that that synapse mis-fire is actually some being of light. Fine. But which god? Exactly what in that light says it's the xian creator deity, and not, say, Ra or Amaterasu? How do I know it's Odin, who'd reward me if I go die bravely in a shootout with the cops while raiding a bank, or the xian god, who, I'm told, would frown upon that?

Hell, even sticking to xianity and the topic of recognizing someone... How is the guy recognizing that light as the xian creator God, more right than the equally xian guy who recognizes it as St Peter (NOT a creator), because that's who they expect to meet them at the pearly gates? How does one support that it's one and not the other?

The whole argument is one big ball of nonsense even IF I grant the existence of gods and their complexity. I can grant all that, and their argument still won't come anywhere NEAR supporting the conclusion. They're still basically left holding an empty bag.
Click to expand...
I do agree. My contention has always been that if there were any god, it would be utterly unfathomable and far too strange for us to understand, and if it were a god worth its salt its silence would be good evidence that it does not care. Any god worth bothering with would find a way to make itself and its needs known to us. If we're not all on the same page by now, it's evidence that no god is concerned with our belief.

The incompleteness of science is so often brought up as an excuse for not believing it or for believing what you will, but the incompleteness of theology is, for some reason, not so critically evaluated.
 
turingtest said:
Maartenn, the fact that you don't understand what he's saying doesn't mean he doesn't- the limits you impose on yourself by your own ignorance don't impose on him. And, to make it really ironic- I don't really think that you understand one little bit of what you're trying to communicate.
Click to expand...

I quite fear that if Maartenn is the standard bearer for his "ideas" we are in very deep doo-poo. Fortunately, he is really not, nor will he ever be capable of having/being same!!!!!!!
 
Maartenn100 said:
Totally agree with Annnnoid about the fact that we have no clue at all:
I don't believe that one scientists who talks about the origine of the universe, really understand his own phrases. " a singularity pops up into existence, surounded by nothingness, not even space, expanding into nothingness. Before the existence of this singularity was no time and no space. This singularity was infinitely dense (contradictory in the terms) etc.

Do you really think that the scientist who got his Nobel Prize because of these statements understands one single bit of what he is trying to communicate?
Click to expand...

He does, you don't , NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID ANYWHERE CAN CONTRADICT HIM. You are not now and never will be a scientist, you are not now and never will be a competent philosopher and thus fun to play mental games with . You waste our time and your own pretending to be either. or, even worse, both.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
Wow, That one is going in my personal folder.

That made my day thanks.
Click to expand...
Making many people's days is something he IS good for - but so damn many wasted electrons to get there!!!!:D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:

Not to mention the complete lack of understanding of all the ways he is just wrong!!!!!:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Dancing David said:
She is also wrong... I have know people with mental illness who has well organised hallucinations and they did not recognize them as hallucinations at all.

Maybe you should stop cherry picking your sources
Click to expand...

That'll happen real soon now. Right after the famous boat sails off into the moonset!!!!!!!
 
Here (link below) is a very interesting and wide ranging public lecture from Sean Carroll, which actually covers the point about why, or how, he thinks that what we now know about the fundamental laws of quantum filed theory (QFT) rule out the possibility of a conciousness which during life is active in the human brain via molecules, chemistry and electrical signals, becoming an external concious "soul" after death -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycGTWN_L9TM

Whatever anyone thinks of Carroll's explanation on that particular point (and of course no NDE-believer here will accept any part of what Carroll says there), the talk in it's entirety is interesting and hopefully useful in so far as it shows why Sean is such an engaging and lucid speaker, and someone who is genuinely trying to provide a clear picture of what he thinks is our best scientific understanding of all sorts of things about the universe, and how he thinks we can use an understanding of qft and particle physics to give us at least one plausible way of thinking about all of that in a way which is consistent with "all" known experiential data and all the major theories in science (I put "all" data in quotes because there will probably always be some data which appears to be inconsistent with any such wide-ranging explanation of how things work in the universe as a whole).

But anyway, the video/lecture might be interesting for the more scientifically interested posters here, if not for those who think the world is better understood by a belief in more philosophical, or particularly more mystical or more religious ideas.
 
Last edited:
Pup said:
We'd probably be appalled to see an unfiltered count, not from a skeptics forum. Emotion based thinking is incredibly attractive. People want to believe a creator is in charge, we won't die, good will be rewarded and bad punished, and we can tell the future.

One can even see how we're hardwired for the benefits of seeking agency behind events when it's there, trying to control events, feeling comfortable in a society with a leader over us, trying to avoid death.

Of course the scientific method can be harnessed for the same purposes, especially control following better understanding, but I think the major difference is that one has to accept the outcome regardless. The scientific method does not produce a story designed to please humans, that can be rewritten if it's too troublesome, so it can be upsetting and uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Well put!

What I find irksome, is the way the peddlers of woo will happily accept all the good things science has given us, as they drive their cars, bang away on their keyboards, use medical science to prolong life, and so on, and so on, but the moment science looks like contradicting their own deep set brand of woo, the scientific method is in question.:mad:
 
Maartenn100 said:
Another difference between hallucinations and BDE's:

Penny Sartori, a British medical researcher in the field of near-death studies, says that hallucinations caused by drugs, medication or chemicals in the brain are chaotic. Afterwards the patiënts are convinced that it was a hallucination.

On the other hand, Near Death Experiences (NDE's) are not chaotic, NDE's are structured and they follow a logical pattern. Afterwards the patiënts are still convinced that their experience was real.

That's a crucial difference between hallucinations and NDE's.
Click to expand...

So here we go still going on about NDEs as if nothing has happened. Now you refer to the "research" done by an intensive care nurse, and make a sweeping claim about the nature of NDEs compared to drug induced experiences.

I told you of my experiences, or lack of them, and have spoken to others who's experience was the same. Of course people who don't have the wondrous kind of experience don't talk about it much - bit boring talking about nothing - but those that do do.
 
What you need is a leap of faith. The essence of these purely spiritual phenomena (The Light, The Beings of Light, that uneartly Realm etc.) is of such a nature (a spiritual nature) that it is unprovable by principle.

But there are clues and signs. You need to have an open mind for the existence of a purely spiritual realm, revealed by the thousands of Near Death Experience reports. See them as revelations. There is no evidence for it, you need a leap of faith.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
What you need is a leap of faith. The essence of these purely spiritual phenomena (The Light, The Beings of Light, that uneartly Realm etc.) is of such a nature (a spiritual nature) that it is unprovable by principle.

But there are clues and signs. You need to have an open mind for the existence of a purely spiritual realm, revealed by the thousands of Near Death Experience reports. See them as revelations. There is no evidence for it, you need a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any reasonable motivation to take such a "leap of faith"?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in homeopathy?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in crystals?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in scientology?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in dowsing?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in chakras?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in Tarot?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in astrology?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in Paul Bethke's claims that the end is upon us?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in Kyoon's predictions?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in FalseFlags unevidenced claims of 911 conspiracy?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in David Icke's claims of our reptillian overlords?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in the Jehovah's witnesses?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in Allah?

Should I take a "leap of faith" and believe in Harold Camping?

Where does it end?

Now somewhere along the route, you must have some method of tossing out wild claims. What is that method?
 
When you are not capable of detecting consistency or patterns in data (NDE-reports), you will have this problem Abaddon:-).
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
What you need is a leap of faith. The essence of these purely spiritual phenomena (The Light, The Beings of Light, that uneartly Realm etc.) is of such a nature (a spiritual nature) that it is unprovable by principle.
Click to expand...

Why? Why would some god/creator require faith? Couldn't a false god/creator likewise simply require faith?


Maartenn100 said:
But there are clues and signs. You need to have an open mind for the existence of a purely spiritual realm, revealed by the thousands of Near Death Experience reports. See them as revelations. There is no evidence for it, you need a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

OK, so you don't agree with the no clue assertion or do you?

"there are clues and signs" or "There is no evidence for it", claiming both is simply self-contradictory. You either need to make up your mind or simply assert that you just don't know.
 
Maartenn100 said:
When you are not capable of detecting consistency or patterns in data (NDE-reports), you will have this problem Abaddon:-).
Click to expand...

Wait, now its undetectable "consistency or patterns"?!?! What about the patterns and consistencies we can detect? How do you distinguish between undetectable vs non-existent consistency or patterns?
 
Why? Why would some god/creator require faith?
Click to expand...

You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god??? Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
 
Maartenn100 said:
What you need is a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

What you call a leap of faith, in this case I call gullibility.

But there are clues and signs.
Click to expand...

And they've been thoroughly discussed. You generally ignore the parts of the discussion that don't lead to where that leap is supposed to land.

You need to have an open mind for the existence of a purely spiritual realm...
Click to expand...

Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept every silly claim that comes along. Open-mindedness means you don't immediately dismiss a claim, but wait instead for a case to be made for it. We've done that. You can't make a case. In fact, you can't even tell us what sort of being or realm we're supposed to be leaping to. You keep changing what you think it means every time some aspect of it is refuted. One can start with an open mind and still come to the conclusion that the proposition is false.

Is your mind open enough to accept the possibility you might be wrong?

...revealed by the thousands of Near Death Experience reports. See them as revelations. There is no evidence for it, you need a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

No, the "spirit realm" hypothesis is merely tacked onto these experiences and then argued circularly as the cause. That's nothing to do with leaps of faith -- it's just eminently bad logic. It's nice of you to admit you have no evidence, but you knew that skeptics make evidence-based decisions. That leaves your argument as perhaps one step above trolling. I don't see the anecdotes as revelations. I see them as a phenomenon for which unscrupulous and gullible people make up fairy tales as explanations.
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god?
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly can't. We've asked you many questions about the thing you're asking us to believe in, and you just keep making up different stuff. You don't really know what you're talking about. You're just waving your hands at some nebulous concept and pretending it's some sort of explanation for observations.

Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.
 
Maartenn100 said:
When you are not capable of detecting consistency or patterns in data (NDE-reports), you will have this problem Abaddon:-).
Click to expand...

Asked and answered countless times. Your abject avoidance of those answers suggest you know you can't refute them, and therefore you know just how shaky the ground is upon which you're standing.

I can draw ten people out of the world's population and hit them all on the foot with a hammer. They will experience similar sensory perceptions. If one person says he was attacked by an evil spirit, not a hammer, the consistency in the perceptions don't add any evidentiary weight whatsoever to the purported cause. Nor would that change if that one person managed to convince the other nine. Just because people have similar experiences doesn't mean your guess at what caused it must be true. That's just elementary reasoning. It has nothing to with having an open mind toward matters of faith.

Further, it has been pointed out that the interpretation of these events correlates to cultural predisposition. You cannot argue that they have a common external cause when the interpretations differ as they do.

As I said, you refuse to address those points, so it's likely you know just what a sham your argument is. So knock off the holier-than-thou attitude.
 
IanS said:
Here (link below) is a very interesting and wide ranging public lecture from Sean Carroll, which actually covers the point about why, or how, he thinks that what we now know about the fundamental laws of quantum filed theory (QFT) rule out the possibility of a conciousness which during life is active in the human brain via molecules, chemistry and electrical signals, becoming an external concious "soul" after death -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycGTWN_L9TM

Whatever anyone thinks of Carroll's explanation on that particular point (and of course no NDE-believer here will accept any part of what Carroll says there), the talk in it's entirety is interesting and hopefully useful in so far as it shows why Sean is such an engaging and lucid speaker, and someone who is genuinely trying to provide a clear picture of what he thinks is our best scientific understanding of all sorts of things about the universe, and how he thinks we can use an understanding of qft and particle physics to give us at least one plausible way of thinking about all of that in a way which is consistent with "all" known experiential data and all the major theories in science (I put "all" data in quotes because there will probably always be some data which appears to be inconsistent with any such wide-ranging explanation of how things work in the universe as a whole).

But anyway, the video/lecture might be interesting for the more scientifically interested posters here, if not for those who think the world is better understood by a belief in more philosophical, or particularly more mystical or more religious ideas.
Click to expand...

It was good and I plan to watch more of his videos.
 
Maartenn100 said:
When you are not capable of detecting consistency or patterns in data (NDE-reports), you will have this problem Abaddon:-).
Click to expand...

And you are incapable of detecting anything about NDE's. All you do is promote the anecdotes you like and reject those you do not.

You are claiming to be able to detect a phenomena while simultaneously claiming it to be fundamentally undetectable by any means.
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god??? Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...

You are defining gods as not understandable and then using that to say we can't question them.

You are simply defending your assertions by making a further assertion that they can not be questioned.

This is nothing more than responding to "Why?" with "Because I said so."
 
My Creator seems to have been this Universe, this Reality, and I see it just fine.
 
Let's all take a flying leap of faith & believe in John Frum, my all-time fave prophet, now a god. We'll get heaps of iron tools, batteries, canned salmon, tee shirts -- all kinds of cargo, when John Frum he come!

Don't be an old stick, Maartenn! You just have to believe!

Tinker Bell will die if you don't.
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god???
Click to expand...


Afaik, humans have relatively the largest, most complex, and most functionally powerful brain of all creatures that have ever lived on the Earth. So it's not a "little" brain. In fact it's the exact opposite.

You think there is a God somewhere who has a bigger brain? Well so far, almost everything ever claimed for that God, has been shown by science to be completely untrue and no more than the ignorant superstitions of the people who first invented that particular god-idea (the idea of a god called Yahweh) 3000 years ago.

So there is zero evidence of any god with a bigger brain.


Maartenn100 said:
Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...


Science (sorry to have to mention science again) has already been astoundingly successful at not merely just "drawing conclusions", but actually discovering, explaining in minute detail, and confirming with incredible accuracy, literally billions of features of what anyone could possibly describe in any honest objective way as "reality". So we've already done that!
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god??? Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...



So your best evidence for a "God" is the belief that you're too stupid to comprehend her if she does exist.

Wow.

That's a profoundly crippling inferiority complex you've got there.
 
Maartenn100 said:
What you need is a leap of faith. The essence of these purely spiritual phenomena (The Light, The Beings of Light, that uneartly Realm etc.) is of such a nature (a spiritual nature) that it is unprovable by principle.

But there are clues and signs. You need to have an open mind for the existence of a purely spiritual realm, revealed by the thousands of Near Death Experience reports. See them as revelations. There is no evidence for it, you need a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

A leap of faith from the diving board of reason belly flops into the deep end.

If you have the courage of your words, then you will no longer seek clues or signs — for they mock faith.

So, Maartenn100, will you forever cease your fake science crusade on this forum to devote yourself entirely to faith? Will you hold silent by your own convictions?

I lol.
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god??? Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one insisting such a god/creator requires faith. Best to check your own "little brain" "general conclusions". Again you need to make up your mind and decide if you want continue to profess what you think such a god/creator/ spiritual realm needs or simply assert you just don't know for whatever reason (little brains included).

"(called science)"? Try just logic, if you can't agree with just yourself how can anyone else, including some god/creator?
 
Maartenn100 said:
You think, that with our little brain, we understand the intentions of a god??? Do you think you can make general conclusions about the deeper nature of reality based on your very little knowledge (called science) about the universe?
Click to expand...

Science always wins.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Totally agree with Annnnoid about the fact that we have no clue at all:
I don't believe that one scientists who talks about the origine of the universe, really understand his own phrases. " a singularity pops up into existence, surounded by nothingness, not even space, expanding into nothingness. Before the existence of this singularity was no time and no space. This singularity was infinitely dense (contradictory in the terms) etc.

Do you really think that the scientist who got his Nobel Prize because of these statements understands one single bit of what he is trying to communicate?
Click to expand...

You do not I must assume have any knowledge of the actual observational and computational and evidential work it took to discover and prove that which he put forward as proof earned him the Nobel. But, yes he fully understands it and thanks to the work of many others I understand it on my science level!!! That it sounds weird has no bearing on the FACT that all the evidence says that is indeed what happened!!!!!!
 
I'm entirely ready to acknowledge that I would not be able to fully fathom the motivations of an omnipotent, omniscient being. But you know what I can do? Prove that I exist. Unambiguously. With appropriate documentation, as needed. No hints, no clues, no secret codices, just good old-fashioned showing up.

Insisting that a divine creator god cannot do what I can do indicates a severe deficiency on its part, not mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom