Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 Hiya Ralf, - "Ralf" <ralf <> Monday, February 03, 2003 03:17 PM Re: A prattling > > Hi Sandeep > > > No one knows what is best for you. > > Then why do you post your thoughts? Because at that moment of the posting, there was nothing else, that could have been enabled , even if the whole Shakti of Brahamand wished otherwise. In that moment. Curious, did you assume from that "no one knows what is best for you",.......... that what was meant was,..... Sandeep knows best for you? :-) > > > Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita teacher on her > > sofa throne. > > If you want to awaken (whatever you think that means) follow your own > > heart, not someone else's. > > Thus you express your thoughts, your heart. By not following it, > I follow it Can you clarify that, please? Not being native English born, da lingo fazes moi. > You support your thoughts with the words of other > teachers. There would be a need for support, if there was an objective to be achieved through the prattling. See, if you care to of course, the apriori assumption, in order for you see the need for support. > > Within our differences there is also similarity. We observe and > learn to apply change to ourselves, changing. I find it rather > arrogant to presume that students do not interpret teachings, > but only follow. Maybe. However in what way intrepretation is any different to following? Out of faith, you accept without question and follow and that is an expression of the existing conditioning-in-the-moment. Out of reasoning (whatever be the particular tool used for the reasoning), you examine and intrepret, once again through the conditioning-in-the-moment. > > Tell me, what do you do? Do you meditate? Worship? Pray? Walk? Be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 No one knows what is best for you. Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita teacher on her sofa throne. If you want to awaken (whatever you think that means) follow your own heart, not someone else's. Once someone sat under a bodi tree and ceased to suffer. So for more than 2000 years people all over the world sit in meditation in the hope that they too will cease to suffer. But why should what worked for Buddha work for you? Chances are, it wont :-) It does not matter how 'awake' your favourite guru appears to be. In This you are really on your way alone. Not lonely - but alone. And no guru can stand beside you. Follow your own heart into love. If your mind is luxuriating in suffering, it will continue to do so until it tires. So you may as well ignore it now :-) Forget the imaginary lineage from Ramana to Poonja to a another to another. This is foolishness. Truth has no lineage. It either siezes your heart forever or it does not. The rest is just psychological nonsence - though of course very appealing and soothing in its way. Why try to quiet your mind with spiritual practice? The mind's function is noise - let it natter away. Its coming and goings have nothing to do with you. Really now, the only mind that is forever still is a dead one :-) You can notice though. You can notice what is behind every action and behind every appearance. And you can smile and live. Whether you know yourself to be the consequence of everything, whether you jump or not, JUST LIVE! You will anyway :-) Why journey to Tibet? I am in the next seat; my shoulder is right next to yours. The breath inside the breath am I. The One who loves thee. --Kabir You are all Buddhas There is nothing you need to achieve. Just open your eyes. --- Siddhartha Gautama Any experience of awakening is a false experience. Those who offer or describe such experiences are those who offer and describe experience. In following paths of right and wrong or ways of achieving something there is a denial of the quiet already in your heart. You will hear that you must kill the ego. Sort of an internal suicide :-) You will hear that you must meditate, understand scripture, be at one with the universe, practice vigilance, and other profoundities that apeal to your mind. Such a strong belief that cause creates effect! Relax - none of this is necessary. Grace will come or it will not. All the rest is of no use at all. So much talk about 'fully awake', the mind 'dissolving permanently into the heart center', 'enlightenment' ... all of this refers only to thinking. What a waste of time. What Poonja said, what Laksmana Swamy said, what Annamalai Swami said, what Muktanand said, what Gurumai said , what Buddha said, what Ramana said - all just pointers. "I have no teacher, One like me is not, in the world of men and gods, none is my counterpart" --the Buddha, from the Ariy-Pariyesana Sutra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Sandeep > No one knows what is best for you. Then why do you post your thoughts? > Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita teacher on her > sofa throne. > If you want to awaken (whatever you think that means) follow your own > heart, not someone else's. Thus you express your thoughts, your heart. By not following it, I follow it. You support your thoughts with the words of other teachers. Within our differences there is also similarity. We observe and learn to apply change to ourselves, changing. I find it rather arrogant to presume that students do not interpret teachings, but only follow. Tell me, what do you do? Do you meditate? Worship? Pray? Walk? Ralf /\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Sandeep >>> No one knows what is best for you. >> >> Then why do you post your thoughts? > > Because at that moment of the posting, there was nothing else, that > could > have been enabled , even if the whole Shakti of Brahamand wished > otherwise. > > In that moment. Ah, you are acting from pure divine expression. Would you say that you have surpassed the bounds of illusion then? You are your Buddha nature, awakened one? > Curious, did you assume from that "no one knows what is best > for you",.......... that what was meant was,..... Sandeep > knows best for you? :-) I think that it is the difficulties in English that you are referring to. ;-) When you say things like the following paragraph: >>> No one knows what is best for you. >>> Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita >>> teacher on her sofa throne. If you want to awaken >>> (whatever you think that means) follow your own >>> heart, not someone else's. expressed as "When you want to do X, then do Y, not Z." I take away the message that you are claiming an absolute truth. Maybe you intended to say: I think that there is no best way. Not the way of the local psychologist, friend, lover or advaita teacher. I believe that if you want to awaken, then you can do so by following your own heart. To clarify the message you expressed in what you wrote, let me exaggerate it: I know the truth that no one knows what is best for you. Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita teacher. If you want to awaken you must follow your own heart, not someone else's, as that is the only way you will do so. Can you see the differences? >> Thus you express your thoughts, your heart. By not following it, >> I follow it > Can you clarify that, please? > Not being native English born, da lingo fazes moi. English isn't my native tongue either, but we'll work through our difficulties, I'm sure. :-) I am saying that you are caught up in a self-referential statement: If I am doing as someone else says, I will not 'awaken'. If I follow my heart, I am doing as you say. Can you rephrase your ideas without the fallacies? >> You support your thoughts with the words of other >> teachers. > > There would be a need for support, if there was an objective to be > achieved > through the prattling. > > See, if you care to of course, the apriori assumption, in order for > you see > the need for support. The assumption is that your words were intended to be a truth stated about reality, illustrated with similar words said by others who are generally acknowledged to have been authorities on that topic. If that is not your objective, then you are not engaging in a conversation. Such behaviour is generally known as trolling. :-) >> Within our differences there is also similarity. We observe and >> learn to apply change to ourselves, changing. I find it rather >> arrogant to presume that students do not interpret teachings, >> but only follow. > > Maybe. > > However in what way intrepretation is any different to following? > > Out of faith, you accept without question and follow and that is an > expression of the existing conditioning-in-the-moment. > > Out of reasoning (whatever be the particular tool used for the > reasoning), > you examine and intrepret, once again through the > conditioning-in-the-moment. So you are effectively saying: If you want to awaken (whatever you think that means) you can do so by following the heart of an awakened one. Right? >> Tell me, what do you do? Do you meditate? Worship? Pray? Walk? > Be. I think I'll let you be, then. Namaste, Ralf /\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Ralf, Thank you for your comments. - "Ralf" <ralf <> Monday, February 03, 2003 06:16 PM Re: A prattling > > Hi Sandeep > > >>> No one knows what is best for you. > >> > >> Then why do you post your thoughts? > > > > Because at that moment of the posting, there was nothing else, that > > could > > have been enabled , even if the whole Shakti of Brahamand wished > > otherwise. > > > > In that moment. > > Ah, you are acting from pure divine expression. Would you say that > you have surpassed the bounds of illusion then? You are your Buddha > nature, awakened one? The Web. > > > Curious, did you assume from that "no one knows what is best > > for you",.......... that what was meant was,..... Sandeep > > knows best for you? :-) > > I think that it is the difficulties in English that you are > referring to. ;-) > > When you say things like the following paragraph: > > >>> No one knows what is best for you. > >>> Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita > >>> teacher on her sofa throne. If you want to awaken > >>> (whatever you think that means) follow your own > >>> heart, not someone else's. > > expressed as "When you want to do X, then do Y, not Z." I > take away the message that you are claiming an absolute truth. > Maybe you intended to say: > > I think that there is no best way. > Not the way of the local psychologist, friend, lover or > advaita teacher. I believe that if you want to awaken, > then you can do so by following your own heart. > > To clarify the message you expressed in what you wrote, let > me exaggerate it: > > I know the truth that no one knows what is best for you. > Not the local psychologist, friend, lover, or advaita > teacher. If you want to awaken you must follow your own > heart, not someone else's, as that is the only way you > will do so. > > Can you see the differences? If you say so. > > > >> Thus you express your thoughts, your heart. By not following it, > >> I follow it > > > Can you clarify that, please? > > Not being native English born, da lingo fazes moi. > > English isn't my native tongue either, but we'll work through > our difficulties, I'm sure. :-) > > I am saying that you are caught up in a self-referential > statement: > > If I am doing as someone else says, I will not 'awaken'. > If I follow my heart, I am doing as you say. > > Can you rephrase your ideas without the fallacies? Thank you for pointing to the intrinsic self negation. In another prattling, I believe there was this pointing, which you believe would not sell.:-) > > >> You support your thoughts with the words of other > >> teachers. > > > > There would be a need for support, if there was an objective to be > > achieved > > through the prattling. > > > > See, if you care to of course, the apriori assumption, in order for > > you see > > the need for support. > > The assumption is that your words were intended to be a > truth stated about reality, illustrated with similar words > said by others who are generally acknowledged to have been > authorities on that topic. > > If that is not your objective, then you are not engaging > in a conversation. Such behaviour is generally known as > trolling. :-) Again, if you say so.:-) > > > >> Within our differences there is also similarity. We observe and > >> learn to apply change to ourselves, changing. I find it rather > >> arrogant to presume that students do not interpret teachings, > >> but only follow. > > > > Maybe. > > > > However in what way intrepretation is any different to following? > > > > Out of faith, you accept without question and follow and that is an > > expression of the existing conditioning-in-the-moment. > > > > Out of reasoning (whatever be the particular tool used for the > > reasoning), > > you examine and intrepret, once again through the > > conditioning-in-the-moment. > > So you are effectively saying: > > If you want to awaken (whatever you think that means) you > can do so by following the heart of an awakened one. > > Right? No. Just offering for consideration, that awakening, as any other happening in duality, is a conceptual event. > > > >> Tell me, what do you do? Do you meditate? Worship? Pray? Walk? > > > Be. > > I think I'll let you be, then. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 OM Ralf Your post does you little credit when you refer to Sandeep facitiously as "awakened one". Also, has it occurred to you that no amount of philosophy nor the rigorous application of the logic that you so love to flaunt will get you closer to the Truth? You use philosophy and logic as weapons. Such ego displays are in fact barriers to Truth and Cosmic Consciousness. Spiritual practices, including the Jnana Yoga ones that you are abusing, may take you to the door of Cosmic Consciousness but they will not take you across the threshhold. Only the Grace of God and Guru will do that. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Om, Omprem > Your post does you little credit when you refer to Sandeep > facetiously as "awakened one". You do not think that showing someone how they appear to be representing themselves is > Also, has it occurred to you that no amount of philosophy nor the > rigorous application of the logic that you so love to flaunt will get > you closer to the Truth? This has been the very point of my posts. > You use philosophy and logic as > weapons. Such ego displays are in fact barriers to Truth and > Cosmic Consciousness. We are communicating through a medium of pure language. I am asking questions, analysing claims about the Truth. Are you saying that we should abandon the divine gift of reasoning? In Shaktism, before one accepts a guru, can one question her or him? Is everyone a guru? > Spiritual practices, including the Jnana > Yoga ones that you are abusing, may take you to the door of > Cosmic Consciousness but they will not take you across the > threshhold. Only the Grace of God and Guru will do that. I would like to ask you, how does one invite the Grace of God or Guru into their lives? > OM Namah Sivaya > > Omprem Namaste /\ Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 I started to write: > Om, Omprem > >> Your post does you little credit when you refer to Sandeep >> facetiously as "awakened one". > > You do not think that showing someone how they appear to be > representing themselves is ....but for some reason left that sentence unfinished. What I meant to ask is whether you think that letting people know how they are representing themselves to you is useful. Or is it that particular term that you have objections to? It is not an insult in my experience, but it is a particularly delicate claim, as is guru, and that is worthy to be explored, just as you gave us your insights into the value of Osho's teachings as evaluated against how he put his understanding into practise. Namaste /\ Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 OM Ralf " You use philosophy and logic as weapons. Such ego displays are in fact barriers to Truth and Cosmic Consciousness. We are communicating through a medium of pure language. I am asking questions, analysing claims about the Truth. Are you saying that we should abandon the divine gift of reasoning? In Shaktism, before one accepts a guru, can one question her or him? Is everyone a guru?" You are not asking questions, analysing claims: you are using the appearance of doing that in order to abuse Sandeep. If you had the interest in Truth that you claim to have, you would have made more of an effort to understand Sandeep's message, you would not have used argumentum ad hominem against him, and your post would have had less of an edge to it. Now you show yourself to be lacking in honour and intestinal fortitude by refusing to admit what you were up to when you are exposed. You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" One does that through living a life of serenity, contentment, love, detachment, discrimination and openness; through a rigrous and disciplined meditation practice; and through a rigourous application of the yamas and niyamas in thought, word and deed every second of life. The fact that you have violated the very first yama, ahimsa or non-violence, through your abuse of Sandeep means that you still have some way to go to receiving such Grace. OM Namaha Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Omprem > " You use philosophy and logic as weapons. Such ego displays > are in fact barriers to Truth and Cosmic Consciousness. > > We are communicating through a medium of pure language. I > am asking questions, analysing claims about the Truth. Are you > saying that we should abandon the divine gift of reasoning? > In Shaktism, before one accepts a guru, can one question her > or him? Is everyone a guru?" > > You are not asking questions, analysing claims: you are using > the appearance of doing that in order to abuse Sandeep. If you > had the interest in Truth that you claim to have, you would have > made more of an effort to understand Sandeep's message, you > would not have used argumentum ad hominem against him, > and your post would have had less of an edge to it. Please, how do I engage in dialogue about concepts without asking questions and analysing the responses? I wonder if this reply will also be taken as an attack now... :-) I am used to spiritual paths where questioning as a path for learning is encouraged. > Now you show yourself to be lacking in honour and intestinal > fortitude by refusing to admit what you were up to when you are > exposed. What I was up to? I'm being exposed? I didn't realise I had stumbled into a spy movie. I am here to talk about different methods for spiritual awareness, to learn about what other people are doing in their life that brings them closer to their Truth. I'm here to discuss that with people, to engage in dialog and question, and be questioned. > You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the > Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" > > One does that through living a life of serenity, contentment, love, > detachment, discrimination and openness; through a rigrous > and disciplined meditation practice; and through a rigourous > application of the yamas and niyamas in thought, word and deed > every second of life. Thank you, that is the sort of answer I am interested in and that is in line with what I have learnt. > The fact that you have violated the very first yama, ahimsa or > non-violence, through your abuse of Sandeep means that you > still have some way to go to receiving such Grace. To better understand the extent of this, was calling me dishonourable and gutless also a violation of ahimsa? So Shaktism is a path of absolute non-violence? Thanks for your responses, Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Gentlemen: We are on a spiritual quest. please accept questions and answers on face value. We have enough trouble with one of the FORMER members going on a deleting spree forcing us to fight this "inner demon" in that poor frustrated soul. Lets have intellectual discussions without personalites PLEASE. Kochu Ralf <ralf wrote: Hi Omprem > " You use philosophy and logic as weapons. Such ego displays > are in fact barriers to Truth and Cosmic Consciousness. > > We are communicating through a medium of pure language. I > am asking questions, analysing claims about the Truth. Are you > saying that we should abandon the divine gift of reasoning? > In Shaktism, before one accepts a guru, can one question her > or him? Is everyone a guru?" > > You are not asking questions, analysing claims: you are using > the appearance of doing that in order to abuse Sandeep. If you > had the interest in Truth that you claim to have, you would have > made more of an effort to understand Sandeep's message, you > would not have used argumentum ad hominem against him, > and your post would have had less of an edge to it. Please, how do I engage in dialogue about concepts without asking questions and analysing the responses? I wonder if this reply will also be taken as an attack now... :-) I am used to spiritual paths where questioning as a path for learning is encouraged. > Now you show yourself to be lacking in honour and intestinal > fortitude by refusing to admit what you were up to when you are > exposed. What I was up to? I'm being exposed? I didn't realise I had stumbled into a spy movie. I am here to talk about different methods for spiritual awareness, to learn about what other people are doing in their life that brings them closer to their Truth. I'm here to discuss that with people, to engage in dialog and question, and be questioned. > You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the > Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" > > One does that through living a life of serenity, contentment, love, > detachment, discrimination and openness; through a rigrous > and disciplined meditation practice; and through a rigourous > application of the yamas and niyamas in thought, word and deed > every second of life. Thank you, that is the sort of answer I am interested in and that is in line with what I have learnt. > The fact that you have violated the very first yama, ahimsa or > non-violence, through your abuse of Sandeep means that you > still have some way to go to receiving such Grace. To better understand the extent of this, was calling me dishonourable and gutless also a violation of ahimsa? So Shaktism is a path of absolute non-violence? Thanks for your responses, Ralf Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hiya Ralf, - "Ralf" <ralf <> Tuesday, February 04, 2003 09:44 AM Re: Re: A prattling <SNIP> > Please, how do I engage in dialogue about concepts without > asking questions and analysing the responses? I wonder if > this reply will also be taken as an attack now... :-) > > I am used to spiritual paths where questioning as a path > for learning is encouraged. Oh by all means, question. Along the way, if you are moved to, have a look at the stake you have, in the questioning. The energy that was available some time back, when the dialogue flowed, was open, receptive, which does not mean it was blindly accepting. It was exploratory. The energy in the last few posts through Ralf is different. So much so, that it gave the impression of a different person with the same label.:-) > > > Now you show yourself to be lacking in honour and intestinal > > fortitude by refusing to admit what you were up to when you are > > exposed. > > What I was up to? > I'm being exposed? > I didn't realise I had stumbled into a spy movie. > > > I am here to talk about different methods for spiritual > awareness, to learn about what other people are doing in > their life that brings them closer to their Truth. I'm > here to discuss that with people, to engage in dialog > and question, and be questioned. Good. Then forget about buying and selling. There is nothing on offer and there is no one to buy, either. > > > You asked, "I would like to ask you, how does one invite the > > Grace of God or Guru into their lives?" Grace is always showering. Moment to moment to moment. The issue is, are you available for the Grace to pour in? Or the hidden stakes in your enquiry, makes you a filled cup and like rain drops, grace pours and runs downs the sides of the filled cup. You don't need to do a whit to receive Grace, except cease all opinions about it. <SNIP> Just some two cents..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2003 Report Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hi Sandeep I'm going to reply to this post in two separate emails... >> I am used to spiritual paths where questioning as a path >> for learning is encouraged. > > Oh by all means, question. > > Along the way, if you are moved to, have a look at the stake > you have, in the questioning. Growth, ego, learning, teaching, a vehicle for the growth of others, strengthening of the self, connection with the Self, destruction of the self, connection with other people, pure fun, the expression of insights, release of frustration ... What stake do you have in posting? > The energy that was available some time back, when the > dialogue flowed, was open, receptive, which does not > mean it was blindly accepting. > It was exploratory. > > The energy in the last few posts through Ralf is different. It is the one energy. There is no Ralf, there is only UsAsOne. A difference in me is a difference in you. > So much so, that it gave the impression of a different person > with the same label.:-) LOL That will get the conspiracy people thinking. Maybe I'm even a part of the conspiracy against all Hindu peoples... ;-) And what do you think your perception of this difference in energy means to you? How do you think it changed? >> I am here to talk about different methods for spiritual >> awareness, to learn about what other people are doing in >> their life that brings them closer to their Truth. I'm >> here to discuss that with people, to engage in dialog >> and question, and be questioned. > > Good. > Then forget about buying and selling. > There is nothing on offer and there is no one to buy, either. I think the "that won't sell" phrase must have been another language or cultural thing. What I intended to get across was that the message of your post was not very clear and I would have liked to see you explain it another way. The rest of the reply in a separate post. Blessings, Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 OM Ralf This passive-aggressive attitude of yours has got to stop. It is bringing you no credit and winning no one to your point of view. For example: Sandeep: Along the way, if you are moved to, have a look at the stake you have, in the questioning. Ralf: Growth, ego, learning, teaching, a vehicle for the growth of others, strengthening of the self, connection with the Self, destruction of the self, connection with other people, pure fun, the expression of insights, release of frustration ... Of course, it is clear to all that the stake that you have is just bolstering a wounded ego. Sandeep asked a pointed question in order to get you to admit the undesireability of your motives, at least to yourself, and to thus change the thread to something that approaches usefulness. You ignored that veiled invitation, took it as an attack and listed a lot of platitudes as a defense. And, speaking of platitudes: Sandeep: The energy in the last few posts through Ralf is different. Ralf: It is the one energy. There is no Ralf, there is only UsAsOne. A difference in me is a difference in you. Again, a passive-aggressive attempt to assign blame elsewhere and avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. Sandeep was making an observation and again inviting you to enter into a true discussion. You rejected that and choose to continue in the same attack mode. Please just speak from the heart and stop being so defensive. No one wishes you ill. We all are interested in what you truly believe and/or have experienced. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , Ralf <ralf@F...> wrote: > > Hi Sandeep > > I'm going to reply to this post in two separate emails... > > >> I am used to spiritual paths where questioning as a path > >> for learning is encouraged. > > > > Oh by all means, question. > > > > Along the way, if you are moved to, have a look at the stake > > you have, in the questioning. > > Growth, ego, learning, teaching, a vehicle for the growth of > others, strengthening of the self, connection with the Self, > destruction of the self, connection with other people, pure > fun, the expression of insights, release of frustration ... > > > What stake do you have in posting? > > > > The energy that was available some time back, when the > > dialogue flowed, was open, receptive, which does not > > mean it was blindly accepting. > > It was exploratory. > > > > The energy in the last few posts through Ralf is different. > > It is the one energy. There is no Ralf, there is only UsAsOne. > A difference in me is a difference in you. > > > So much so, that it gave the impression of a different person > > with the same label.:-) > > LOL That will get the conspiracy people thinking. Maybe I'm > even a part of the conspiracy against all Hindu peoples... ;-) > > And what do you think your perception of this difference in > energy means to you? How do you think it changed? > > > >> I am here to talk about different methods for spiritual > >> awareness, to learn about what other people are doing in > >> their life that brings them closer to their Truth. I'm > >> here to discuss that with people, to engage in dialog > >> and question, and be questioned. > > > > Good. > > Then forget about buying and selling. > > There is nothing on offer and there is no one to buy, either. > > I think the "that won't sell" phrase must have been another > language or cultural thing. What I intended to get across > was that the message of your post was not very clear and I > would have liked to see you explain it another way. > > The rest of the reply in a separate post. > > Blessings, > > Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.