This was an odd double-barreled discussion that ended abruptly since the Quora site deleted the entire discussions. Such is an example of why when I have online discussions I keep Word docs wherein I safe the discussion whenever anyone replies.
So, first up is a reply posted by a certain Anna Legrand who self-describes as, “Bipolar*Addictions*Psychopathy*Behavior”—which, God bless her, may be why she doesn’t make much sense—to the question Is the Bible proof of the paranormal?, which was
A book of unproven claims can’t be a proof of anything. Someone’s fictional stories being written down and published don’t make them true.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
You imply some universal imperatives as hidden assumptions so how do you derive them from your worldview?
Anna Legrand
I never implied the fact that something being written down doesn’t make it real as a hidden assumption in the first place. In fact, I didn’t imply anything at all, I just stated as an obvious primitive truth that for some reason some people fail to understand. My worldview is not something I derived it from – any individual who has a brain and has a cognitive ability to think logically can figure this out. Believers don’t have this ability so they think differently. People can have very different worldviews, but this truth can only be this way, everything else is a lie and a logical fallacy.
Ken Ammi
Sorry if I was unclear: your hidden assumption is that, on your worldview, there’s some sort of universal imperative against believing things in, “A book of” of supposedly, “unproven claims” and that such, “can’t be a proof of anything.”
Those are just merely asserted positive affirmations at this point since you began with those conclusions—and likewise with, “fictional stories.”
See, the very first step in systematic critical thinking is that you begin with, you first, justify how and why it’s the case that your worldview provides some sort of universal imperative to reject alleged, “unproven claims” which implies a universal imperative to demand proof and to only believe in things that are proven.
Likewise with your assertion of an, “obvious primitive truth”: what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative to only believe in things that are true?
That, “My worldview is not something I derived it from” is the problem since otherwise, you opt for, “a brain…cognitive ability to think logically can figure this out” subjectively.
What, on your worldview or subjectivity is wrong with, “a lie and a logical fallacy”?
See, you make a lot of mere assertions, I’m just asking what—besides your subjective say so—premises them.
Anna Legrand
Look, it doesn’t matter because THERE IS NO PROOF of any claims made in the bible concerning anything supernatural. No hard evidence, period. When there’s proof, then we’ll talk. Don’t shift attention from the fact that theists have NOTHING to prove their claims with.
Ken Ammi
Did you ponder why you are literally forced to ignore issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and have to double down on incoherently, illogically, anachronistically begin with merely asserted conclusions?
The merely asserted positive affirmation, “THERE IS NO PROOF of any claims made in the bible concerning anything supernatural. No hard evidence, period” is a conclusion premised on hidden assumptions which are that 1. on your worldview there’s a universal imperative to present proof or evidence (you jump between the two) and 2. on your worldview there’s a universal imperative to only believe in things which have been proved or evidenced.
So, I’m simply asking a basic 101 level question about how and why that’s the case since without that you’re just pretending that there’s a universal imperative to present proof or evidence and to only believe in things which have been proved or evidenced.
And if you’re just pretending then well, why should I be interested much less beholden to your merely subjectively emotive personal preferences du jour?
Anna Legrand
Look I don’t know in what imaginary world you live in, in my world, if you can’t observe, measure, replicate or falsify something, it is not considered to be a hard evidence. I don’t care if you agree with this or not – I am stating here that to me, there is no hard evidence to prove that gods exist, , so it doesn’t matter what anyone wrote in your novel that you think proves something, people who think trust must be earned, not donated, don’t believe in your god.
Ken Ammi
It seems that you’re attempting to feel your way out of the problem you caused by beginning with merely asserted positive affirmations since when I mere asked that you start at the beginning, you realize you can’t do it.
Sadly, rather than taking out your frustration on your collapsed failure of a worldview, you take it out on me who merely asked questions.
So, I’ll stop asking and start making statements:
On your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with it if I live in an imaginary world so you discredited yourself from implying that it’s wrong to live in one.
Your worldview provides you no premise upon which to imply, as a hidden assumption that we ought to only believe in things for which we have, “hard evidence” so you discredited yourself from complaining about believing in things sans hard evidence.
But you seem to realize that which is why you went full-blown subjectivist, “to me, there is no hard evidence to prove that gods exist” but your subjectively emotive personal views aren’t a standard so you discredited yourself again.
Unsure to what novel you’re referring but you seem to say that if someone has hard evidence and writes about it, you’ll reject it.
So, it seems you’re discrediting every reason (excuse) you have to affirming, “don’t believe in your god.”
Anna Legrand
You haven’t actually read a word of what I wrote, have you? Or you just didn’t get it? I am not affirming anything, I don’t need excuses, I don’t care what you think.
I don’t care who lives in which reality. I never told you what you “ought to believe” – you re putting words in my mouth. I said I don’t believe that something exists unless there’s evidence. I don’t care if you think differently, that’s your business, I never said that living in yours is “wrong”. Your emotional reaction has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. You talk about me having absolutely no idea who I am. You are making absurd statements that you think somehow stem from my disbelief in gods. Sorry to burst your bubble of arrogance, but not believing in gods is not a worldview, not an ideology; it only means that I don’t believe that gods exist — it doesn’t mean anything else. You are trying to label me because you yourself cannot provide any evidence that your god exists, that it was your god who created the universe, so you blame non-believers for your helplessness. You were trying to find implications in my not believing in a god, but you failed. I still don’t believe that gods really exist — I have no reason to believe so. You’re reading too much into it, you’re trying to find things that are not there. Not believing that something exists is very simple; it implies nothing else, but you created some worldview in your head.
My actual worldview has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t believe in gods, because it is such a minor, boring detail that I am not interested in. It doesn’t even occur to me, because a lack of belief is an empty space, so why even bother thinking about it? You know nothing about my worldview. All your statements are go-to accusations you throw at each and every atheist you encounter, but again, you’re looking for something that is not there and you’re becoming anxious about it. You are making ridiculous conclusions. You don’t understand my posts because you have a prejudice against all atheists caused by your inability to prove that your god really exists. Your faith is so weak and fragile that one unbeliever can make you doubt it, and that’s why atheists make you nervous. I didn’t create any problem, and I’m not trying to get out of it. You have confirmation bias, and that’s why you are finding things that are not there.
Ken Ammi
Since you’re missing the point, I’ll stop asking questions and start making statements.
Your worldview’s utter subjectivism is perfectly encapsulated in your appreciated admission, “I don’t care who lives in which reality.”
So, logically, there’s literally nothing wrong if I’m, “putting words in my mouth” since you’re just interpreting the byproducts of bio-chemical neural reactions to the effect that you emotively subjectively personally don’t like it—which is as impotent and meaningless as it sounds.
So, your subjective personal preference du jour is, “I don’t believe that something exists unless there’s evidence” so that’s not a standard: it’s on the level of a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry—yes, I get that.
And I never said a single word about that I, “think differently” you’re just imagining things to distract from that I requested what your justification is for that, on your worldview. The clear reply is that there’s isn’t one which is why it’s just a subjective personal preference that’s utterly irrelevant to anyone but you.
“not believing in gods is” 100% a, “worldview” and, “ideology” but if you insist it’s not then, pray tell, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?
I could go on and on and on but I’m willing to wait for your reply to that fundamental issue.
Anna Legrand
“subjective personal preference that’s utterly irrelevant to anyone but you.” are you sure about that? Hundreds of millions of people wouldn’t agree with you, sweetheart.
“not believing in gods is” 100% a, “worldview” and, “ideology” but if you insist it’s not then, pray tell, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?”
really? what’s the main idea of this ideology then? And why am I supposed to pray about something? Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything. You are such a typical theist who thinks they somehow shifted attention from the fact they don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that any of their gods exists, you are trying to insert your god into my life but you don’t understand that no g od exists in my life. Gods are simply absent, there’s no single factor in my life that is related to any of the gods. I’ll assume you don’t believe Krishna is real. So ok, “I don’t believe in Krishna” is a 100% your ideology, if we follow your logic. Are you ready to explain what’s that ideology of yours that you don’t believe in Krishna? How deep are you in that not believing in Krishna worldview?Can you tell me more about it? How does it define everything that you do? You see how illogical and childish your whole narrative is? You think something you believe to be true matters so much to me? Well it doesn’t, people believe in all sorts of crazy crap, does my disbelief in aliens or Flying Spaghetti Monster also an ideology? A worldview? What about you? You have no point here, what you doing here is called mental masturbation that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t prove that your god exists. Even if you will be able to prove it, he is a repulsive psycho and a mass murderer, so I will not need him anywhere near me. You’ve been brainwashed so deeply, actually believing those fairy tales became your brain’s defence mechanism and you will fight tooth and nail for them because it is unbearable to realise that you’ve been wasting your life on BS and lies. The truth is that you’ve got nothing, you still haven’t figured out anything about me. So if you want to embrace your delusion, knock yourself out, stop harassing atheists because they don’t owe you anything, there are no gods in their lives, there are gods in yours, that’s why you are becoming so hot and bothered once someone mentions that they are not real. Seems like your faith is very weak and fragile if you feel the need to become so defensive of your beliefs.
Well, when I went to reply to that, the page said, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.” As it turns out, when I searched for the original post, it said, “Quora deleted this question” meaning that the whole discussion was gone.
So, I will reply here just for the sake of my audience’s interest
Asking “what’s the main idea of this ideology then?” is odd since you already provided the answer, it’s “not believing in gods.”
FYI: “pray tell” is just an old English old fashioned manner in which to say “please tell me.”
That’s why it wasn’t, “pray” but rather, “pray tell.”
Now, you made my point for me, I noted, “‘not believing in gods is’ 100% a, ‘worldview’ and, ‘ideology’” and you proved it by admitting, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything.”
Indeed, since, “not believing in gods” is the core of your worldview, its tentacles reach out and corrupt all which it touches so not matter what you’re thinking about, literally, “anything and everything” then, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking” since, and now we’ve come full circle, “not believing in gods” is the core of your worldview.
Anything and everything so when she thinks about the cosmogony, mathematic, chinchillas, deep ocean vents, etc., etc., etc., etc., she must adhere to her dogmatheism since she’s not allowed to bring God into anything and everything whatsoever since Atheism is thought restricting.
She just proved that, “‘not believing in gods is’ 100% a, ‘worldview’ and, ‘ideology.’”
But then I found that she had also posted a reply to the question How does the thinking atheist view morality? Where do they think moral principles come from, if not fromGod?, wherein she wrote
If threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that keeps you from raping and killing, then you are not a moral individual – you have no idea why you shouldn’t rape and kill but you don’t do it because you are threatened with punishment in case you do. That’s not morality, that is called being compliant, obedient, fearing perceived authority.
Real moral principles come from compassion, basic rules of human coexistence, empathy, common sense, safety and social experiences – not from threats and fears.
So if you are being coerced into obedience, you are completely immoral, if you don’t understand why you should not rape and kill without the threat of hell, then you have no idea what morality is. Religion creates obedient sheep, not moral individuals.
Ken Ammi
Who is it that “keeps…from raping and killing” due to “threat of eternal punishment”?
What, on your worldview, is wrong with “raping and killing” which I have to ask since you seemed to imply there’s something wrong with it but didn’t bother saying how or why, on your worldview?
As for, “then you are not a moral individual” are you implying that what’s “moral” is absolute, universal, etc. and if so, how’s that the case, on your worldview?
Also, if there are people for whom, “threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that keeps you from raping and killing” then you should fall to your knees and thank God for that.
The history of humanity is literally saturated with examples of “being compliant, obedient, fearing perceived authority” and we should all be thankful of that.
What if someone rejects “Real moral principles…compassion, basic rules of human coexistence, empathy, common sense, safety and social experiences” what do we do to deal with such people?
Anna Legrand
Ok so since you have no idea why raping and killing are wrong, I will give you one example. Say, you do everything you want to do including raping and killing women and children just like you want to do on a regular basis. You are living among billions of other people who are not better not worse than you are. That would automatically untie their hands and give them equal right to do whatever they want to do and that will include raping and killing you because someone might have that idea occur to them at some point, but hey, you wouldn’t want to be raped and killed, would you? Other people would not want to be raped and killed also. That is why humans have a silent agreement not to rape and kill each other – otherwise Homo sapiens wouldn’t have survived as species because they would have killed each other at their primal stage. So this “don’t kill” rule is just a logical conclusion – it’s best that no one kills each other because it’s the most beneficial behaviour for everyone, hurting each other is also bad because it won’t get you far if people don’t trust each other. So that’s just peaceful coexistence logic. This is the most primitive explanation that is usually enough for a primitive mind to stop raping and killing random people.
But there are other layers to that. Like no one has a right to take someone else’s life because it doesn’t belong to them in the first place, because a human life is priceless – that’s an explanation for more advanced humans who are civilised enough to understand the concept of the value of a human life and the concept of basic human rights. These are the concepts of the civilised world and developed (maybe some of the developing) countries, unfortunately, there are still places on Earth where people have no idea about things like that and they are treated like garbage, used once and recycled. For example, according to Islam, if someone gets killed – that’s Inshallah, no big deal, nobody cares. These people are savages, this attitude to a human life should be criminalised.
Civilised cultures and countries have criminal laws for those who don’t have a brain capacity to understand that killing and hurting other people is objectively bad, that it will only bring even worse consequences for everyone, that violence only breeds more violence. For them humanity invented legal systems and punitive measures to keep them in fear of prosecution and jail time, some countries still have death penalty for those who refuse to understand why it is bad to rape and kill. Unfortunately, there are still individuals who just don’t understand that.
In many underdeveloped countries with very low levels of the general population education, people are more religious than in the developed world (statistically, the worse the economical situation in the country, the more religious its population is), so governments are able to have some control over their criminal behaviour by enforcing the fear of a god over them. It can be rather effective on some, it is absolutely not effective on others. Here, it’s not a god people should be thankful to, but those authorities who scare people with it, religion is just a political tool of controlling and manipulating masses, nothing more, it was created as one, and it is used as one, there is nothing more to it. If someone finds religion attractive or useful for anything else – that’s a by-product, not its original purpose.
So If someone misbehaves and doesn’t have a brain to understand morals, society puts them in jail. The laws and law enforcement is not always effective, but that’s a systematic problem, morality can’t fight for itself – institutions have to do it, and they consist of humans who naturally make mistakes and are prone to corruption. So what we’ve got here is an imperfect humanity where there is a good understanding of what’s good and what’s bad, but we have imperfect systems run by not always perfect people. And obviously there are always those who manage to get away.
Personally, I don’t steal or kill anyone simply because I don’t ever get the desire to do so or even anything closely related to that. I just don’t want to do anything like that, and that’s all. And I don’t understand why would anyone would want to take something that doesn’t belong to them, or kill someone, or hurt someone else. It is all so strange to me – why engage in such antisocial activities? There are legal ways to get what you want without hurting anyone, and again, I don’t even have such urges or ideas of damaging something or someone’s life in the first place. And I am not the only one, most people have no desire to hurt anyone, I am sure.
Note that my first sentence in my next reply was due to having thought that, “Quora deleted this question” implied that she did it, that it was deleted from Quora generically. So, I was mistaken, as she’ll eventually point out, as it was literally the Quora admin who deleted it—and I’d love to know why.
Ken Ammi
Just as a reminder, in the post you deleted to hid your failure by relying on censorship: you proved that your worldview is Atheism.
Now, where did you get the idea what I, “have no idea why raping and killing are wrong”? You misread my question which was, “What, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘raping and killing’ which I have to ask since you seemed to imply there’s something wrong with it but didn’t bother saying how or why, on your worldview?” it’s important to keep an eye out for qualifying term, in this case they were, “on your worldview?”
So, your reply is: selfishness. You actually claimed that the only reason that “raping and killing” (you surely meant “murder”) are wrong is that I emotively subjectively wouldn’t want it done to me: wow!
That’s not ethics, that’s selfish self-preservation.
BTW: I have collected together quotes from celeb-Atheists who assure us that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution—and the same can be said even for the most violent mass and serial murders: please argue with them about, “a silent agreement not to rape and kill each other” which clearly, is too silent since many, many, many, many people through history have apparently not heard of it or, they heard but don’t care.
BTW: it, “Homo sapiens wouldn’t have survived” that would be 100% irrelevant, on your worldview. In fact, “a human life is priceless” is just speciesism and your emotively subjective assertion. You might like your life as a personal preference du jour but on your worldview your life is the result of blind accidents that just vomited your out into existence and there no universal imperative to treasure nor defend or protect the accidental byproducts of blind accidents that just vomited human life into existence.
I realize that since your worldview fails to offer any reason to not rape and kill (murder) you have to just make up stuff: on your worldview, you’re just asserting what some groups of accidentally existing apes decided to vocalize.
Thus, accidentally existing, “humanity invented legal systems and punitive measures” that only apply if someone get caught. On your worldview, Hitler enjoyed what he did and…………..and nothing: he literally got away with it while his victim still suffer to this day.
Thus, “Personally, I don’t steal or kill anyone simply because I don’t ever get the desire to do so or even anything closely related to that” but MILLIONS of people do get that desire, follow up on it, and get away with all of it or some of it, on your worldview.
See, again, to you it’s all subjective, “I don’t…I just don’t…I don’t…It is all so strange to me…I don’t,” etc. but as for those who say, “Well, I do, so now what?” you better hope you’re fitter than they, on your worldview.
Before getting to how it ended, I had some interaction with others in that comments section—you’ll note that most didn’t reply to me.
Jared Weeks
If one is to believe the Bible then God is the most immoral entity ever.
It is documented that God is struck down or cast evil upon humanity so many times and in such decimation at times at the count is tens of millions.
That’s not my morality
Anna Legrand
Exactly, Yahweh is not an exemplary moral being, he’s driven by emotions and savagery.
Jared Weeks
Besides there is a right place for savagery and emotions! 😉
Ken Ammi
But it would seem that by referring to “my morality” you admitted that it’s subjective, in which case you disqualified yourself from condemning even “the most” supposedly allegedly “immoral entity ever.”
Kathryn Lea
All religions use shame to control the masses. That’s why most people in the world have shame based mental health disorders. Most disorders need toxic shaming to exist. Religion causes mental health disorders and inturn extreme violence.
Ken Ammi
If you do something shameful, should you not feel ashamed?
Marilyn Bauer
So very true! I had an experience a year or so ago with a branch of Christianity that was founded by Martin Luther in the 1500s. They pretty much welcomed me, or so I thought, into their church but when I complained about a born and raised Lutheran man’s rudeness to me in Bible study they turned on me with a vengeance! Oh! Such awful people! You’re so very right: Christianity does Not equate to morality! Thanks, Mbauer
Ken Ammi
So how ever many people the statistically insignificant number “they” were in the myopic experience (which was a terrible one) and that results in that “Christianity does Not equate to morality!” wow, you’re a hyper prejudice person and wildly maniacle about spewing hatred on thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people whom you’ve never even met: shame on you!
George Johnson
Hello Anna, Your content is impressive, I’d appreciate a follow to stay updated
Ken Ammi
If you take a moment to ponder it, you’ll note that her anti-Christian rants are incoherently illogical: she always begins with merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions to which she merely jumps and if you dare to challenge her, she becomes emotive and relies on censorship by deleting entire posts and the discussions that were had therein to run away to her safe-space and hide her failures.
John King
Thank you that means a lot. I really appreciate the way you engage with ideas so thoughtfully; it makes the conversation feel easy and genuine. It’s refreshing to share reflections where respect and curiosity are the tone. Always happy to meet you in that calm, meaningful space. 😊
Ken Ammi
If you take a moment to ponder it, you’ll note that her anti-Christian rants are incoherently illogical: she always begins with merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions to which she merely jumps and if you dare to challenge her, she becomes emotive and relies on censorship by deleting entire posts and the discussions that were had therein to run away to her safe-space and hide her failures.
Greg Field
Oh, logic and reason? The Kryptonite of religious hypocrisy? Well said! But once again, a fabricated question by the quora AI bots. The more controversially a question is worded, the more hits/clicks, answers, and comments, and the ad revenue stream increases. Notice the wording “How does a thinking atheist view morality”. The implication is that the atheist can’t be intelligent or moral without religion. So it turns out that Quora itself is its own worst troll. Here is what you find when you look for the author and it’s the quora bot, called a “prompt generator”:
(BTW I responded to your other comment earlier – I’m Bipolar II and an artist/songwriter/performer/etc living in Thailand)
Ken Ammi
Good point, “The implication…that the atheist can’t be intelligent or moral without religion” is fallacious since God created us with His ethos within us regardless of “religion” (a tricky term, BTW).
As for, “How does a thinking atheist view morality” well, they’re at least going to be forced by their worldview to consider it the result of a very, very, very, very long series of happy accidents to which no one is required to adhere to well, that’s the end of morality being anything but tentative emotively subjective personal preferences du jour and that debunks Anna’s spewing of hatred.
Kathryn Lea
Yes you need to feel shame when you feel something you did is wrong. You then need to action that shame into better things so that shame can take no further gain. To repent means to acknowledge what you did is wrong and to not do it again. But religions are moving away from teaching repentance and if they aren’t they are telling you what is wrong and right to their own beliefs. Mostly instead of repentance they say that God or whoever they call their Higher Power will instantly just forgive them. That’s not how it works though. And if you shame others to conform to a shameful society that’s when we end up with all sorts of shame based mental health disorders. Most religions are shame based societies. For starters they don’t believe in equality for all! Sadly when we are raised in a religion…we don’t question this.
Thankyou for your question. Hope the day is finding you well.
Ken Ammi
But, “you need to feel shame when you feel something you did is wrong” on my worldview since there’s a premise for it but such isn’t the case on your worldview.
On your worldview shame is just an accidentally existing apes emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of an accidental chemical soup in it’s accidentally existing brain—and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to an accidentally existing apes emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of an accidental chemical soup in it’s accidentally existing brain, on your worldview.
Thus, on your worldview, “To repent means” the emotively subjective personal choice, “to acknowledge what you did is wrong and to not do it again” but there’s no universal imperative to do that.
I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “religions” (recall I noted “‘religion’ (a tricky term, BTW”) nor to what worldwide study you’re referring but on your worldview, there’s nothing at all wrong with, “moving away from teaching repentance.”
I’m unfamiliar with anyone (besides hyper universalists, perhaps) who teach, “God…will instantly just forgive them” even though on your worldview there’s also nothing wrong with that.
There’s also nothing wrong with “don’t believe in equality for all!” nor with, “we don’t question this.”
See, I didn’t say or ask anything about your feelings. What you did is what in philosophy is called a psychological report, you told me how you emotively subjectively feel about things but what I noted is that on your worldview you’re dealing with, “the result of a very, very, very, very long series of happy accidents to which no one is required to adhere to well” which is why, “that’s the end of morality being anything but tentative emotively subjective personal preferences du jour and that debunks Anna’s spewing of hatred.”
So now, the last I head about that discussion was Anna pointing out, “Oh my, I didn’t delete my post to hide anything, Quora deleted it, no worries, I’ve got nothing to hide sweetheart.”
In case you didn’t catch how she, “proved that your worldview is Atheism” is that I asked, “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?”
The point of such an odd question to ask to an Atheist is because it inevitably elicits a reply such as what she offered, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything.”
See the point?
Atheism isn’t, as so many Atheists demandingly assert, just one view about one issue. She just proved that it’s more like the core of their worldview and it infects all that it touches to the point that, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about” what? About, “anything” and about, “everything.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply