Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: .... > The notion of suffering was brought up by > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > though. > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > I find effective in getting across that > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > is not in Now is not real. > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > communicating about that are two different > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > whereas the communication may employ > constructs. > > > Bill i introduced the concept of " relevance of pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... one must work diligently to one's salvation that means the highest skill of the seeker to keep focused... any one in this forum who doesn't think he can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha spiritually is either a tourist with nothing better to do or a seeker ... life does not afford so many spiritual categories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > ... > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > though. > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > I find effective in getting across that > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > communicating about that are two different > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > whereas the communication may employ > > constructs. > > > > > > Bill > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > one must work diligently to one's salvation > that means the highest skill of the seeker > to keep focused... > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > better to do or a seeker ... > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > Wow! I just got an adrenaline rush! Along with me buds Ram and Nizzy. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > though. > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > communicating about that are two different > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > to keep focused... > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > better to do or a seeker ... > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > Wow! I just got an adrenaline rush! Along with me buds Ram and Nizzy. > .......bob you asshole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > ... > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > though. > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > I find effective in getting across that > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > communicating about that are two different > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > whereas the communication may employ > > constructs. > > > > > > Bill > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > one must work diligently to one's salvation > that means the highest skill of the seeker > to keep focused... > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > better to do or a seeker ... > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless to think of one's " measure " . And with that the " spiritual categories " go away. We are talking together here, but there really is nobody else, there is the presence of what is, which can be met or not. I tell some of the mental patients I work with: It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't have to think, I don't have to know anything. I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying it is not complicated. In fact there is zero complexity. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > > though. > > > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > > communicating about that are two different > > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > > to keep focused... > > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > > better to do or a seeker ... > > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > > > Wow! I just got an adrenaline rush! Along with me buds Ram and Nizzy. > > .......bob > > you asshole > Thank you...I needed that. most kindly, ...bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > though. > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > communicating about that are two different > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > to keep focused... > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > better to do or a seeker ... > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless > to think of one's " measure " . > > And with that the " spiritual categories " go away. > > We are talking together here, but there really > is nobody else, there is the presence of what > is, which can be met or not. > > I tell some of the mental patients I work with: > It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, > and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't > have to think, I don't have to know anything. > I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying > it is not complicated. > > In fact there is zero complexity. > > > Bill > when you treat a patient you deal with his perceived social/personal functioning inadequacy (or what others have perceived for him) ...spirituality is when the need for adequacy has vanished Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: .... > > you asshole > > > Thank you...I needed that. > most kindly, ...bob i am all dedication Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2006 Report Share Posted March 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > ... > > > > you asshole > > > > > Thank you...I needed that. > > most kindly, ...bob > > i am all dedication > A great big kiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " <ericparoissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > > though. > > > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > > communicating about that are two different > > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > > to keep focused... > > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > > better to do or a seeker ... > > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > > > > > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless > > to think of one's " measure " . > > > > And with that the " spiritual categories " go away. > > > > We are talking together here, but there really > > is nobody else, there is the presence of what > > is, which can be met or not. > > > > I tell some of the mental patients I work with: > > It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, > > and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't > > have to think, I don't have to know anything. > > I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying > > it is not complicated. > > > > In fact there is zero complexity. > > > > > > Bill > > > > when you treat a patient you deal with > his perceived social/personal functioning > inadequacy (or what others have perceived > for him) ...spirituality is when the need > for adequacy has vanished > Oh no, Eric. Not at all. I don't even read their charts because I don't want to know their diagnosis. Some of them are extremely accessible. I just let the light in me speak to the light in them. It is there. When the light in me speaks to the light in them, the light in them is what responds. Miraculous in a way. These are folks that have been around the block a few times and are ready to find a different route (some of them). Unlike " normal people " they don't have a lot to protect. You know the saying, " When you ain't got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose. " " Normal folks " , so many of them, don't dare to be really open to change because they have something to lose. When I talk to *anyone* the underlying current is always spirituality. That's what I am about. There is no specific intention to it. When I talk to a client here, for example, I have no agenda. I have no particular thing that I want to " get across " . I'll just be standing there in front of them observing their face intently, sensing the life that is in them, in everything. There isn't something I *do*. I just *be* and let Life take care of what it is all about. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > > > though. > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > > > communicating about that are two different > > > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > > > to keep focused... > > > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > > > better to do or a seeker ... > > > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > > > > > > > > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless > > > to think of one's " measure " . > > > > > > And with that the " spiritual categories " go away. > > > > > > We are talking together here, but there really > > > is nobody else, there is the presence of what > > > is, which can be met or not. > > > > > > I tell some of the mental patients I work with: > > > It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, > > > and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't > > > have to think, I don't have to know anything. > > > I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying > > > it is not complicated. > > > > > > In fact there is zero complexity. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > when you treat a patient you deal with > > his perceived social/personal functioning > > inadequacy (or what others have perceived > > for him) ...spirituality is when the need > > for adequacy has vanished > > > > Oh no, Eric. Not at all. > I don't even read their charts because I don't > want to know their diagnosis. > > Some of them are extremely accessible. > > I just let the light in me speak to the light > in them. It is there. When the light in me > speaks to the light in them, the light in > them is what responds. Miraculous in a way. > > These are folks that have been around the > block a few times and are ready to find a > different route (some of them). Unlike > " normal people " they don't have a lot to > protect. You know the saying, " When you > ain't got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose. " > " Normal folks " , so many of them, don't dare > to be really open to change because they have > something to lose. > > When I talk to *anyone* the underlying current > is always spirituality. That's what I am > about. There is no specific intention to it. > When I talk to a client here, for example, I > have no agenda. I have no particular thing that > I want to " get across " . I'll just be standing > there in front of them observing their face > intently, sensing the life that is in them, in > everything. There isn't something I *do*. I > just *be* and let Life take care of what it is > all about. > > > Bill > I like your style Bill!.....bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 --- " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 a écrit : Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric Paroissien " > > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience it! > > > > > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > > > though. > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > > > communicating about that are two different > > > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > > > to keep focused... > > > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > > > better to do or a seeker ... > > > > life does not afford so many spiritual categories > > > > > > > > > > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless > > > to think of one's " measure " . > > > > > > And with that the " spiritual categories " go away. > > > > > > We are talking together here, but there really > > > is nobody else, there is the presence of what > > > is, which can be met or not. > > > > > > I tell some of the mental patients I work with: > > > It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, > > > and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't > > > have to think, I don't have to know anything. > > > I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying > > > it is not complicated. > > > > > > In fact there is zero complexity. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > when you treat a patient you deal with > > his perceived social/personal functioning > > inadequacy (or what others have perceived > > for him) ...spirituality is when the need > > for adequacy has vanished > > > > Oh no, Eric. Not at all. > I don't even read their charts because I don't > want to know their diagnosis. > > Some of them are extremely accessible. > > I just let the light in me speak to the light > in them. It is there. When the light in me > speaks to the light in them, the light in > them is what responds. Miraculous in a way. > > These are folks that have been around the > block a few times and are ready to find a > different route (some of them). Unlike > " normal people " they don't have a lot to > protect. You know the saying, " When you > ain't got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose. " > " Normal folks " , so many of them, don't dare > to be really open to change because they have > something to lose. > > When I talk to *anyone* the underlying current > is always spirituality. That's what I am > about. There is no specific intention to it. > When I talk to a client here, for example, I > have no agenda. I have no particular thing that > I want to " get across " . I'll just be standing > there in front of them observing their face > intently, sensing the life that is in them, in > everything. There isn't something I *do*. I > just *be* and let Life take care of what it is > all about. > > > Bill > I like your style Bill!.....bob You just said....keep it simple... in more words. Which isn`t what your choosen profession is usually about. But you made your choosen profession a lot more than its title. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 a écrit : > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric > Paroissien " > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Eric > Paroissien " > > > > <ericparoissien@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of suffering was brought up by > > > > > > someone (who?), insisting that suffering is > > > > > > " real " because, afterall, they experience > it! > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet I insist that it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not based on some theory or hypotheticals, > > > > > > though. > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " time " *is* a construct that > > > > > > I find effective in getting across that > > > > > > whatever takes time is not in Now, and what > > > > > > is not in Now is not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > So *knowing* that suffering is unreal and > > > > > > communicating about that are two different > > > > > > things. The knowing is not hypothetical, > > > > > > whereas the communication may employ > > > > > > constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > i introduced the concept of " relevance of > > > > > pain in one's spiritual life " ; Ramana or Niz > > > > > or anyone has an adrenaline rush when spoken > > > > > to one's face " YOU ASSHOLE! " ... > > > > > one must work diligently to one's salvation > > > > > that means the highest skill of the seeker > > > > > to keep focused... > > > > > any one in this forum who doesn't think he > > > > > can measure up to Krishna or Niz or Buddha > > > > > spiritually is either a tourist with nothing > > > > > better to do or a seeker ... > > > > > life does not afford so many spiritual > categories > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I get what you are saying, it is pointless > > > > to think of one's " measure " . > > > > > > > > And with that the " spiritual categories " go > away. > > > > > > > > We are talking together here, but there really > > > > is nobody else, there is the presence of what > > > > is, which can be met or not. > > > > > > > > I tell some of the mental patients I work with: > > > > It's not complicated. I just be in the Now, > > > > and that's all I have to do. Job done. I don't > > > > have to think, I don't have to know anything. > > > > I'm not saying it is *easy*. But I *am* saying > > > > it is not complicated. > > > > > > > > In fact there is zero complexity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > when you treat a patient you deal with > > > his perceived social/personal functioning > > > inadequacy (or what others have perceived > > > for him) ...spirituality is when the need > > > for adequacy has vanished > > > > > > > Oh no, Eric. Not at all. > > I don't even read their charts because I don't > > want to know their diagnosis. > > > > Some of them are extremely accessible. > > > > I just let the light in me speak to the light > > in them. It is there. When the light in me > > speaks to the light in them, the light in > > them is what responds. Miraculous in a way. > > > > These are folks that have been around the > > block a few times and are ready to find a > > different route (some of them). Unlike > > " normal people " they don't have a lot to > > protect. You know the saying, " When you > > ain't got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose. " > > " Normal folks " , so many of them, don't dare > > to be really open to change because they have > > something to lose. > > > > When I talk to *anyone* the underlying current > > is always spirituality. That's what I am > > about. There is no specific intention to it. > > When I talk to a client here, for example, I > > have no agenda. I have no particular thing that > > I want to " get across " . I'll just be standing > > there in front of them observing their face > > intently, sensing the life that is in them, in > > everything. There isn't something I *do*. I > > just *be* and let Life take care of what it is > > all about. > > > > > > Bill > > > I like your style Bill!.....bob > > You just said....keep it simple... > in more words. > Which isn`t what your choosen profession is usually > about. > But you made your choosen profession a lot more than > its title. > > Patricia > re: You just said....keep it simple... in more words. ~~ Ha! Well, such it is I suppose. I don't mind if there are a lot of words. But I want what I say to be simple. I've learned from trials and many many errors that simple statements given in simple words often can be read in a zillion different ways, which amounts to saying nothing in a way. Bill 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.