Guest guest Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 Dear Sreenadh ji & Panditaarjun ji Thanks for the tips.As you have rightly said,it is unwise to reach fast conclusions.We will keep it open. Now regarding question from arjun ji - Some months back i had attempted the astronomical angle of this,in Jyotish group site. Imagine you are standing near a Huge Ball.Your visibility is just on the surface facing you.Sun/Mercury/Venus are close to earth and within the inner circle -aspecting 7th house(abhimukha).Once you start moving backwards,visibility increases.By aspect sages are only considering Poorna drishti(including special aspects).Thus mutual disposition between Earth/Mars gives Mars to aspect 4/8 houses apart from 7th. Now think of Jupiter - Moving further back -It gives a possibility for tangential aspects 5th/9th.Thus you see the position of Jupiter is the best position to get a general/broad overview of matters. Now think of saturn - moving backwards - try drawing tangential lines as if they are coming from a torch - the angle of view narrows- aspecting 3 & 10.Why the aspect is on 10th and not on 11th, can be based on the mutual disposition and angle/tilt. Now why they are positioned like this.I feel they have a role to play on the said houses.Thus astronomical positioning is just the projection of similar aspects within us. Thanks Pradeep , " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > We can not be sure whether 'Drishti' means 'relative angle between > planets' or not. Have a look at the question of Arjun ji. We don't > know the exact logic behind special Drishtis. Till we understand it, > we can not be sure what Drishti is, although we can temporarily we > can accept the definition, 'Graha Drishti is relative signs the > planets influence from the sign of their placement'. But, yes, it > does not looks perfect. > But till we explore the logic behind 'Special Drishti' etc, I don't > think we have another choice. Accepting the definition, 'Drishti > means relative angle between planets', is a definition that has > existence only after Sripati, and supporting it will bring to front > the whole absurdity of considering sign and house separately, > calculating drishti percentage for all degrees etc. So think twice > before resorting to some definitions concerning 'Drishti'. > PS: It takes time for the stone fallen into the deep well to produce > a sound. So as is the mind of the wise person. So is the info that > fall into the mind of the wise. He patiently waits long enough before > forming conclusions, and spells them out. So please don't jump into > conclusions. > Love, > Sreenadh > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > Dear sreenadh ji > > > > >>>It seems that you are speaking about " Rashi Drishti " , although > you > > are using the wordings 'for a graha to influence'. > > > > You are right,i was pointing to Rashi drishti -though using ''for a > > graha to influence''. > > I feel as you have said later in the mail,Grahas placed in Chara > Rashi > > have a relation or necessity to interact with sthira and vice- > versa.This > > is a fixed aspect concerned with the nature of a Rashi.It is like > one > > individual, subjected to specific circumstances, having a > desire/need to > > interact with one from another background.This has something to do > > with,the fundamentals of asatrology system(Why chara should aspect > > sthira).Some reason is there behind the repetitive pattern > > ofa)chara/sthira/ubhaya then again chara b)Dharama/Artha/Kama/Moksha > > c)Fire/earth/water/air etc. > > > > >>Those statements contradict. By the first statement you are > accepting > > that " Drishti is 'related to' angle between planets/rashis " . > > > > Regarding angles,i feel i was not clear enough - Though chara > aspects > > only sthira,it does not aspect the sthira next to it.It means it is > not > > just the nature(chara/sthira) but the angle also matters for an > aspect. > > > > Thus for Rashi drishti the nature of rashis forms the basis,but the > > basic rule of an angle is also needed for the grahas placed in those > > rashis. > > > > As ubhaya rashis can aspect only ubhaya rashis,the question of angle > > does not arise.They are in kendras.Angle is the basic > criterion.Graha > > decides graha drishti,while nature of the Rashi decides Rashi > drishti. > > > > As you have rightly said,these concepts are already incorporated,if > we > > use all the parameters like nature of > > rashi,male-female,dharma/artha,enemity,avsthas of planets etc etc. > > > > I feel progression of Rashis,have links with the process of > > srishti/sthithi/samhara.Rashi drishti should be studied only when > we use > > timing patterns based on Rashi viz-Rashi dashas. > > > > Thanks for the valuable points giving direction to our studies. > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Padeep, > > > You said: > > > > For a graha to influence another rashi a minimum angle is > > > > must.Dwisabhava rashis are always in kendras from one > > > > another,and hence there is no need for such an exclusion. > > > Those statements contradict. By the first statement you are > > > accepting that " Drishti is 'related to' angle between > > > planets/rashis " . It seems that you are speaking about " Rashi > > > Drishti " , although you are using the wordings 'for a graha to > > > influence'. The angle between chara signs is 90 deg, the angle > > > between sthira signs are 90 deg, the angle between ubhaya signs > are > > > 90 deg. But how you are going to associate angle when - chara > signs > > > has rasi drishti only on sthira signs and sthira signs has rasi > > > drishti only on chara signs ? Kendras are separated by 90 deg. > But if > > > Aries aspects Le, Sc and Aq, then, the angle between Ar and Le is > 150 > > > deg, between Le and Sc is 90 deg and between Sc and Aq is 90 deg. > So > > > the point is, you can not compare rasi drishti to Ubhaya > > > (dwiswabhava) signs and that of chara (movable) and sthira (fixed) > > > signs. I hope that you got the point. > > > Now why don't you, have a look at another angel of view. I will > > > state it for you - below. > > > * Fixed drishti between signs is like characteristics of the > signs > > > itself. Then what is the purpose of the concepts like 'Rasi > drishti' > > > itself?! Describing the characteristics of the signs itself will > > > explain the effects of Rasi drishti as well. Or in other words > Rasi > > > Drishti is a concept similar to Chara-Sthira-Ubhya, Male-Female, > etc > > > classifications, which describe the nature of a sign. Instead of > > > descibing the nature of the sign, coining words and concepts > > > like 'rasi drishti' contradicts the basics and that is why no > rishi > > > of Arsha (Skanda) and Jayne (Garga) school speaks about it. > > > * Rasi drishti has a FIXED nature and is NOT DYNAMIC like graha > > > drishti which changes from horoscope to horoscope. This also > should > > > hold as back from using them in the similar way. > > > Yes, I always appreciate your intuition, as evident from the > words - > > > > My strong feeling is Rashi drishtis are not to be used along > with > > > > graha drishti. > > > Again in your own words: > > > > We should never ever mix these two systems. (i.e. Rasi Drishti > and > > > Graha Drishti) > > > I agree to it. > > > About Sanjay Rath ji: > > > > It is very clear that Shri Sanjay Rath is a > > > > scholar and has indepth knowledge.It is also true that he has > been > > > > doing a lot towards promotion of jyotish and providing free > > > > knoweldge. > > > Yes, I supports those statements and truly appreciate the > research > > > he has done about the system of astrology. But the PROBLEM is, he > > > takes some concepts from some astrological classics, INVENTS(!) > its > > > new applications all by himself! (It is violation of studentship > of > > > the ancient Indian system of astrology!) For the first step he > always > > > provides quotes, but alas for the second step how to provide > quotes > > > when there no such thing exists! For example: > > > 1) In pradeep's words: " Jaimini has not told us to use rashi > drishti > > > in so called ''D-9''. " Yes, he INVENTS the application of > everything > > > in D-Charts, and INVENTS new items about which every D-Chart > (higher > > > multiples) should talk about, he INVENTS methods to calculate > anther > > > dasas and anther dasa periods where no such things are provided!! > He > > > is a very good INVENTOR!! ) If not FUNNY what is this? Is it > that > > > he considers himself as equallent to Rishis who breached the > barriers > > > of the world (the system that is world) and created the > astrological > > > system which can be used to have a glimpse of the working of the > > > beyond (i.e. destiny/time or mahakala). Those who want to study > and > > > use the " ancient indian astrology by the saints " will_not/can_not > > > accept this. If some one is doing this then he is becoming the > > > students of the " Rathian system " and NOT of the original streams > > > like - Arsha system, Vedic system, Tantric system, Yevana system > etc. > > > Because the D-charts, and the new applications of higher D-charts > > > INVENTED by Rath, the special things of analysis he associates > with > > > different dasa systems etc are NOT supported by classics. > > > Yes, but what ever this be the new energy he brought into > astrology > > > and his hard work on Dasa systems, the evolvement of the great > > > programmer like PVR who put everyone of Rath's ideas into his > > > software JH 7.0, the great co-ordination capabilities, the > popularity > > > he brought in for astrology in the west - all these should be > > > appreciated, and is of immense value. My love and regards to him. > > > > > > PS: Pradeep ji, may be now it is clear why 'Drishti' means 'Graha > > > Drishti' only and NOT 'Rasi Drishti'. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > --- In > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji > > > > > > > > You can very well address me without a ji. > > > > My strong feeling is Rashi drishtis are not to be used along > with > > > graha > > > > drishti. > > > > Rashi dashas are not based on the nakshthra placement of moon > and > > > > progressions,rather that of Rashis.Grahas in chara rashis can > > > influence > > > > those in Sthira Rashis(chara has some reason to infleunce > sthira and > > > > vice-versa?).Similarly Grahas in Dwisabhava Rashis will > influence > > > those > > > > in other dwisabhava rashis. > > > > If we study carefully, why immediate sthira and chara rashis are > > > > avoided,can be understood.For a graha to influence another > rashi a > > > > minimum angle is must.Dwisabhava rashis are always in kendras > from > > > one > > > > another,and hence there is no need for such an exclusion. > > > > Rashi drishtis will explain how planets can influence another > > > > rashi/planets,while thinking of Rashi based progressions.We > should > > > never > > > > ever mix these two systems. > > > > > > > > Also i got a chance today to listen to the audio from shri Rath > ji > > > (As > > > > advised by Vinita ji).It is very clear that Shri Sanjay Rath is > a > > > > scholar and has indepth knowledge.It is also true that he has > been > > > doing > > > > a lot towards promotion of jyotish and providing free > > > knoweldge.Myslef > > > > is really thankful and respectful towards that.But i am afraid > and > > > sorry > > > > to say that Shri Sanjay Rath has not understood the concept of > > > > Divisional charts and Karakamsha analysis very well. > > > > > > > > Let us take a case which i had mentioned in the past too.Sun > joining > > > > Karakamsha will give political connections - Most translators > have > > > > interpreted this as Sun joining Atmakaraka in the navamsha.This > is > > > not > > > > correct,as, then all with Sun as Atmakaraka will have political > > > > connections. > > > > > > > > We have only 12 Rashis.The rashi on to which Atmakaraka graha > has > > > > navamsha becomes Karakamsha Rashi.If Sun is placed in this > > > Rashi,then > > > > the yoga applies. > > > > > > > > Shani joining Karakamsha rashi - fame and doing well in his > line of > > > > occupation.It is very clear that,the rashi on to which > Atmakaraka > > > graha > > > > has amsha is the environment where the aatma or soul has applied > > > > prana/life(navamshas are navapranas).If a hardworking planet > like > > > Saturn > > > > is there to promote the desire of soul,will not that person > become > > > > famous in his line? > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Chandrena Gouryam - It simply means if Chandra is > there in > > > > Karakamsha Rashi,then one worships Gowri.Rahu Durga - Shri Rath > has > > > > brought in concepts of Rashi drishti etc to make matters > > > worse.Jaimini > > > > has not told us to use rashi drishti in so called ''D-9''. > > > > > > > > Now Graha drishti logic can be studied in detail,without much > > > > confusions. > > > > > > > > Kind Regds > > > > Pradeep > > > > , " Sreenadh " > > > > <sreesog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > I am not that familiar with Rasi Drishti and its > application. I > > > > > invite other learned member to comment on " Rasi Drishti " , > > > supplying > > > > > relevant quotes as well. > > > > > Love, > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Have been waiting to hear from the learned members. > > > > > > My opinion is only academic in nature and would like to > clear > > > the > > > > > > following doubt on Rashi drishti before proceeding to Graha > > > Drishti. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)How is Rashi drishti working > > > > > > 2)What makes Chara and Sthira aspect each other -Why is the > > > > > adjacent > > > > > > sign avoided (certain angle is a must for drishti?) > > > > > > 3)If planets are not present in Rashis undergoing Rashi > > > drishti -do > > > > > > such drishtis have any effect > > > > > > 4)Can Rashi drishti,be universally applied. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Sreenadh " > <sreesog@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > What is Drishti? What is your openion on the same? To > further > > > > > > help > > > > > > > the discussion, I am presenting my ideas and thoughts on > the > > > > > same. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > hope that the following will of help in out search for the > > > > > > original > > > > > > > system of Indian Astrology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > > > > What is Drishti? > > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > View 1 :- Drishti is relative angles between planets > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > In classics (Krishneeyam, BPHS, Varaha Hora, Yavana Hora) > it > > > is > > > > > > said > > > > > > > that the planets have partial Drishti towards some > houses. It > > > is > > > > > > said > > > > > > > that- > > > > > > > 3rd House - 1/4 Drishti > > > > > > > 4th House - 3/4 Drishti > > > > > > > 5th House - 1/2 Drishti > > > > > > > 7th House - 1 Drishti > > > > > > > 8th House - 3/4 Drishti > > > > > > > 9th House - 1/2 Drishti > > > > > > > 10th House - 1/4 Drishti > > > > > > > Here you can note that the Drishti is NOT increasing in a > > > gradual > > > > > > > manner in the first half till 180 deg, SEEMS TO gradually > > > > > decrease > > > > > > > after 180 deg. This lead somebody (like Sripati) to > suggest > > > that, > > > > > > > Drishti should be calculated for ALL DEGREES in a > Shashtyamsa > > > or > > > > > > > Percentage bases. Thus the proposed suggestion by him > would > > > be- > > > > > > > 90 deg = 25 % > > > > > > > 120 deg = 75 % > > > > > > > 150 deg = 50 % > > > > > > > 180 deg = 100 % > > > > > > > 240 deg = 75 % > > > > > > > 270 deg = 50 % > > > > > > > 300 deg = 25 % > > > > > > > But as you could understand, calculating Drishti for ALL > > > DEGREES > > > > > > > becomes relevant only when we accept the " unequal house > > > division > > > > > > > system " (Bhava system) proposed by Sripati himself!! > Because > > > then > > > > > > > only the GRADUAL increment or decrement of a planet's > > > influence > > > > > in > > > > > > a > > > > > > > single house itself comes into consideration! But as we > know > > > > > > already, > > > > > > > the ancient Saints considered House and Sign as the same. > And > > > > > > > therefore no " unequal house division system " was > prevalent as > > > per > > > > > > > ancient Indian astrology, but only equal signs/houses of > 30 > > > deg > > > > > > each. > > > > > > > Another pitfall this view leads into is " Associating > Drishti > > > with > > > > > > > angles " . This concept leads to the view that " Drishti is > > > nothing > > > > > > but > > > > > > > relative angles between planets " . If this was the basic > > > concept > > > > > > then > > > > > > > the saints could have arranged the Partial Drishti in the > > > > > > following > > > > > > > way - > > > > > > > 90 deg = 25 % > > > > > > > 120 deg = 50 % > > > > > > > 150 deg = 75 % > > > > > > > 180 deg = 100 % > > > > > > > 240 deg = 75 % > > > > > > > 270 deg = 50 % > > > > > > > 300 deg = 25 % > > > > > > > Which makes calculation easy, because then we could use > the > > > > > simple > > > > > > > formula, > > > > > > > (100/180) x Angle = Drishti % > > > > > > > But this not possible, since NO CLASSICS by saints support > > > > > neither > > > > > > > this view, nor the concept of " unequal house division " . > > > > > > > View 2 :- Drishti is relative signs the planets influence > from > > > > > the > > > > > > > sign of their placement > > > > > > > ------------------------- > ---- > > > ---- > > > > > - > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > As it happens in several other instances, the very good > > > > > > > text " Krishneeya " gives as the clue to the original system > > > > > > followed > > > > > > > by the saints. > > > > > > > In Krishneeya it is said that - > > > > > > > Shashtam dwiteeya bhavanam Dwadasamekadesam na pasyati > > > > > > > Swastanadweeshyante grahastadanyani bhavanani > > > > > > > [The planet does not look (Drishti) towards 2, 6, 11, 12 > > > > > > houses/signs > > > > > > > from the house/sign they are posited in] > > > > > > > As we know well the word Bhavana means Sign as clearly > > > > > > stated > > > > > > > by Mihira in the sloka, " Rasi Kshetra Griha Rksha Bhani > > > Bhavanm > > > > > > > chikartha sampretyaye " [Rasi, Kshetra, Griha, Rksha, Bham, > > > > > > Bhavanam > > > > > > > are words with same meaning] Thus it means that, the > planets > > > have > > > > > > 0% > > > > > > > drishti towards 2, 6, 11, 12 signs from the sign they are > > > posited > > > > > > in! > > > > > > > This also means that the concept of GRADUAL increment or > > > > > decrement > > > > > > of > > > > > > > Drishti (proposed by Sripati) should be discarded! If we > > > follow > > > > > > the > > > > > > > clear cut rule put forward by the saints, what we get is - > > > > > > > All planets have Drishti towards - > > > > > > > 1st Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - (Full) > > > > > > > 2nd Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - Nil > > > > > > > 3rd Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 1/2 > > > > > > > 4th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 3/4 > > > > > > > 5th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 1/2 > > > > > > > 6th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - Nil > > > > > > > 7th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - (Full) > > > > > > > 8th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 3/4 > > > > > > > 9th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 1/2 > > > > > > > 10th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 1/4 > > > > > > > 11th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - Nil > > > > > > > 12th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - Nil > > > > > > > Or in other words > > > > > > > All planets have Drishti towards - > > > > > > > 1st Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 100 % > > > > > > > 2nd Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 0 % > > > > > > > 3rd Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 50 % > > > > > > > 4th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 75 % > > > > > > > 5th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 50 % > > > > > > > 6th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 0 % > > > > > > > 7th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 100 % > > > > > > > 8th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 75 % > > > > > > > 9th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they are > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 50 % > > > > > > > 10th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 25 % > > > > > > > 11th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 0 % > > > > > > > 12th Sign from the sign (completely) from the sign they > are > > > > > > posited > > > > > > > in - 0 % > > > > > > > If you feel that this concept of Saints about partial > > > > > > Drishti > > > > > > > is primitive and incomplete, then I would boldly say > that, we > > > > > > should > > > > > > > accept their concept AS IS till we understand the original > > > > > > > astrological system proposed by them, completely. We have > NO > > > > > RIGHT > > > > > > to > > > > > > > pour water into the system they proposed without clearly > > > > > > > understanding the system proposed by them. I reject > Sripati > > > (his > > > > > > > corrupting of the original system) also in the same > spirit. > > > > > > > One more point we should remember - The saints of Arsha > > > > > > > School (Skanda, Vasishta, Viswamitra etc), Garga School > > > (Garga, > > > > > > > Rishiputra etc) NEVER proposed any " Partial Drishti " > system! > > > They > > > > > > > have only talked about " Full Drishti " (towards 7th House) > > > > > > > and " Special Drishti " (of Ma, Sa and Ju) only and NOT > > > > > > about " Partial > > > > > > > Drishti " ! It is the Yavana School (Yevanewara, Meenaraja, > > > > > > > Sphujidhwaja etc) that proposed partial Drishti. Probably > it > > > is > > > > > > from > > > > > > > Yevanewara that Parasara borrowed this concept of Partial > > > > > Drishti. > > > > > > > Since Parasara borrowed many concepts from Yavaneswara [An > > > Indian > > > > > > > (Afghanistan?) guru of an astrological school of thought > who > > > > > lived > > > > > > > far before Alexander's invasion to India and before the > > > period of > > > > > > > Parasara Hora, i.e. 1400 BC], many have even abused > Parasara > > > as > > > > > > > Yevana! So - > > > > > > > 1) if you want to go by the original steam of Indian > > > astrology, > > > > > > > let us first discard the " gradually increasing or > decreasing > > > > > > drishti " > > > > > > > concept of Sripati and the idea that " Drishti is relative > > > angles > > > > > > > between planets " . > > > > > > > 2) If you are strong willed and a real puritan then, > discard > > > > > > the > > > > > > > concept of partial drishti itself, since the Arsha School > and > > > the > > > > > > > Garga School never propose such a thing!! > > > > > > > But I won't suggest you to do the second thing, since we > also > > > > > > respect > > > > > > > the views of Yevanewara and Parasara as well. Moreover > > > > > Krishneeyam > > > > > > > and Saravali also talk about Partial Drishti (probably > > > following > > > > > > > Parasara). Saravali even goes to the extend of proposing > some > > > > > > > Rajayoga based on Partial Drishti in slokas like " Vrishe > Sasi > > > > > > > lagnagataH supoorno... " and " EkaH sweche subhaH syachubha > > > > > > > gaganagaH... " etc. So I won't suggest discarding > the " Partial > > > > > > > Drishti " concept, but for sure we should discard the > > > corrupting > > > > > > ideas > > > > > > > put forward by Sripati, with the malicious intention of > > > giving a > > > > > > > strong hold to his " unequal house division system " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===================================================================== > > > > > > > New inputs and thoughts on this issue, (especially based > on > > > > > clear > > > > > > > evidance from astrological classics), are welcome. Yap, > > > Even > > > > > if > > > > > > > not based on classics, all clear logical thoughts and > ideas > > > are > > > > > > > welcome. I would personally request well knowledgeable > > > persons > > > > > > > like Panditji, Dakshnamoorti ji, Chandra hari etc to pour > more > > > > > > inputs > > > > > > > and thoughts on the same, revealing their true ideas. As I > > > know > > > > > > that > > > > > > > Vijayadas Pradeep ji is a person who (probably due to > > > intution) > > > > > > who > > > > > > > argues in this direction, I also request him to pour in > more > > > > > > > inputs. > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.