Tuesday, April 22, 2014

LMC: Reason Chapter Activities...This week and next

 Activity 1 (today):
Read the following short blurb and write a commentary about it in the comments section. (anon; first name only)
(1st reaction & applications/connections to reason chapter) 

Activity 2 (today):
Peer Mark of Lateral Thinking Assignment in Turn It In


Activity 3 (start today-Teams):   
Who will be the winning team in the NBA?

Based on:

~New Articles
~Player Stats
~Players with experience
~Score Differences during play-offs
~Regular Season Record
~Coaching Staff
~Team Chemistry
~Sports Experts (PTI; ESPN; NBA)
~Lateral Thinking approach (6 Hats)
~Interviews of staff here at PHS(30 sec clips)
~Reason
~Intuition

Presentations on Monday April 4/28/14 by group


Activity 4/HW:   Preparation for Seminar next class:

Questions:   Article LINK
1.  What is the most important phrase?  Explain your thinking.

2.  Does the text agree or disagree with the following quote:

3. Based on this article and the chapter reading, is reason powerful or perilous?  Explain your thinking.

Activity 5:  Final Lateral Thinking Assignment May 2, 2014 7am




51 comments:

  1. Jocelyn Nolasco; 3A
    The "made up" religion of believing in the Spaghetti monster proves that religious ideals from any religious system are not reliable. It is the sources that one is exposed to as well as the ethics established by society to question whether or not being a Pastafarian is a mockery or an actual religion. Because of the fact that Christianity is a popular religion, especially in Europe, it is understandable why the Austrian government would not agree to Niko Alm showing his beliefs in the Spaghetti Monster. When I first saw this article, I was not shocked that the Austrian government had to give in to Alm's demands on how his drivers license should appear. It was funny to me that such a mockery really fits the profile of a religion, in my opinion. A religion can say that they believe in the work of one God or many Gods or even that there is no higher power, but cannot prove it through facts. A religion may only prove it through the usage of personal experiences and emotion. In the reason chapter, we discussed what was truth and what was valid. This incident demonstrating different religious ideas may not be considered true to the reader, but will most likely be considered valid, as the man fit the religion of Pastafarian into a religion such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jocelyn M/3A
      I agree with Jocelyn, however I do not think that just because the Spaghetti monster is not common within her area, it makes it less of a religion. Everyone has the right to believe in a faith. If Niko is Pastafarian then he should not be thought of as a mockery. He has true reasoning from his personal beliefs that he should be able to wear this headgear because its within his religion. A question I have for Jocelyn, if being Pastafarian fits the "profile" of religion so perfectly, why should it be found humorous?

      Delete
  2. Catherine E.
    My initial reaction to this article is that someone finally found a loop hole within a the law. In this case it is the restriction of head gear in a photo for their license. It just disappoints me that people forge a religion and their beliefs in order to do it. the instant connection that i remembered that pertains to the reason chapter is the way syllogisms are used to make a VALID argument. a statement does not necessarily have to be true to be valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stanley
      do you think the main motive of Alms action was to find a loop in the law, or do you think that he was trying to undermine religion. I personally disagree, and believe he was trying to make a statement to all people who believe in a religion.

      Delete
    2. Jazmine 3A
      I agree with Catherine when she said that not all statements are true because this is needed for a valid argument. I also agree when she said the man found a loophole in the law. I thought this was very clever of him.

      Delete
  3. Jennifer, 3A
    The following passage discusses how an Austrian atheist Niko Alm was allowed to wear pasta strainer when he took the photo for his driver’s license. According to Alm, all religions are lies. For example, if a religious individual believe and praise a god, he will praise spaghetti in order to prove that religion is not true. This connects to the reason chapter, where he uses deductive reasoning in order to create his argument. This post, however, can be seen as offensive from the views of religious individuals. But, those who are atheist may agree with him and take it as a simple joke. From my personal view, I believe what was done by Niko Alm was offensive, and he should not have been allowed to wear a pasta strainer for his driver’s license. This shows that the companies issuing these licenses do not have respect for those who are religious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nnedi
      I agree with your connection to the reason chapter, because he used syllogism to further his argument. As a result, the true conclusion is that he can be allowed to wear the colander in his diver's license. However, I disagree that he should not be allowed to wear the colander because I feel as though the colander is not affecting or harming the citizens, so he should be allowed to wear it and the government is credible for that occurrence.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Jennifer's perspective on what Niko Alm did. I personally don't find it offensive, but I understand why others may, and I agree that he has no respect for religions and the people who choose to lead a religious life. I think that it is a direct attack on religion and his stubborn desire to wear a pasta strainer as "religious head gear" was meant to degrade and belittle religion.

      Delete
    3. Catherine O.
      It can be seen as offensive to many people. I believe however that a religion is a religion, regardless of whether it's a lie or not. The law says that Austrians can wear a headgear if its for religious purposes, and his religion is a religion.

      Delete
  4. Nnedi


    I found this article quite suprising. Initially, I thought Australia was more acceptive to freedom of religion. Consequently, that preconceived notion affected the way I thought about this situation. The colander is not affecting the citizens neither is it posing a threat to the society, therefore I think the government's decision was up to par. I can connect this to the reason chapter where it talks about syllogism and deductive arguments. Many people see Pastafarian as a belief, rather than a religion due to its elements. However, in reality it can be considered a religion because the followers are practicing the beliefs of the religion itself. Therefore, it is a true conclusion and it can be justified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jocelyn N. - 3A
      Do you refer to Australia or Austria? Austria can be seen as a strict country not only on its history, but based on its traditions as well.I agree with you that Pastafarian can be seen as a belief rather than a religion based upon the arguments it gives as well as the ethics transferred around society.

      Delete
    2. Catherine E
      I agree with you in terms of how you connected this passage to the reason chapter. The way i saw it was that a: headgear is only permitted for religious reason b: a pasta strainer is religious head wear for pastafarians c: Niko Alm can wear a pasta strainer. Whether this pastafarian business is a true religion is arguable.

      Delete
  5. Abigail
    3A

    I think that Niko Alm was being childish in his conquest to wear a pasta strainer as "religious headgear." Despite his loyalty to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he did not really believe in the joke religion and the sole purpose of the absurd "church" was to mock real religious persons and their beliefs. This on its own is very immature. People should be free to worship, or to not worship, as they please. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, there is no reason to be condescending and to believe you have the moral ground to make fun of them. This joke, founded on the notion that religion is a waste and nothing more than a silly story, went too far and there was no real cause for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ephraim 3A
    My first reaction to reading this short blurb is that there are all types of religions. I never thought that I would see a religion called "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." It complements the normal/popular religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Instead of the religion having someone that they believe in, this religion is made up of make-believe stories. I also like the fact that people who support these religions are called pastafarians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kelly 3A
    My first reaction was "Is this the whole article?" I think it is funny that Atheists made the best and fun out of their "religion." Even though it is a joke, it is a good thing that he argued for what was right. This short blurb proved that if you have a reason for something then what you want is bound to happen. I am will be the first in America! (jk)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ephraim 3A
      I agree with the fact that this religion is funny. However, atheism is not a religion. It is just when a person does not believe in a religion. It is good for people to stand up for what they believe in.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Kelly because my next reaction was wow is this really the entire articles. I also disagree because i don't think he was trying to make fun of religion just to make a point

      Delete
  8. Alyssa 3A,

    My first reaction was wow this is weird but at the same time really cool. I agree with the fact that his "religion" is no better or worse than any churches because religion is usually just blind faith and there inst really any proof but we still believe so whose to say the church of the flying spaghetti monster cant be real. Its shows how our different reasoning affects what we chose to believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vaskia, 3A

      I agree with Alyssa that the religion is weird and pretty cool that someone would come up with a different religion in order to prove that they can wear their own religious head gear even if the government thinks that it is crazy. Religion can then be defined as something in which one strongly believes in. And if Alm wants to believe in Spaghetti Monsters then he can.

      Delete
  9. Catherine 0.
    When I read the article, I first found it surprising and ridiculous. Especially when I read that he supports the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, after reading his purpose, I understood what he was trying to do. It's possible that anyone can come up with am Idea and call it religion. What he did seems very much similar to how other religions said they were formed. This connects with the lateral thinking section. We cannot rely on traditional logic to give us new ideas, we need to adopt a more creative way of thinking that encourages us to search actively for better solutions to problems.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jemuel
    I thought that the Austrian atheist Niko Alm had a valid argument by making his own religion which is similar to how he viewed religion. He thought of it as nothing more than made up stories that are taken seriously by others. This somewhat relates to rationalisation from the reason chapter because he is using his prejudices to justify his religious standing which is atheist. His bad reason is that it is not justified but it can also be argued that it is a good argument. I thought that his argument made sense and I am sure that he is not the only person that thinks of religion the same way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tunji
      3A

      I agree with Jemmuel. Niko Alm had a valid reason. People should be able to practice whatever religion they want, whether it was made up 2,000 years ago or 1 day ago. People do not have to agree with him and he does not have to agree with people. I do not believe that people should judge Alm because of what he did. Niko Alm made his religion and the government should see that as an actual religion. I am a Christian so I do not believe that Alm’s church is valid, as a person though I believe people should be able to do what they want to do freely.

      Delete
    2. Tunji
      I agree with Jemmuel. Niko Alm had a valid reason. People should be able to practice whatever religion they want, whether it was made up 2,000 years ago or 1 day ago. People do not have to agree with him and he does not have to agree with people. I do not believe that people should judge Alm because of what he did. Niko Alm made his religion and the government should see that as an actual religion. I am a Christian so I do not believe that Alm’s church is valid, as a person though I believe people should be able to do what they want to do freely.

      Delete
  11. Obichi

    When I first read the article, I thought the whole idea was funny because the idea of pastafarians is unusual and the church the guy made up is funny as well. However, I do not like the way he is mocking the church because I do believe in God and having a relationship with him. But, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions so I won’t argue with his. The article also made me consider the segment of the reason chapter that discusses the difference between validity and truth (or accuracy). Just because the man’s argument about the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is valid based on his premises does not mean it is the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jesus
    My first reaction to this short blurb was that I was surprised about what this man did. The man did have a good argument that he provided with his religion and how he should wear a pasta strainer in his picture for his license. This connects back to the reason chapter because it can an argument where it can be provided to support his religion where others may think differently from what he thinks but his reason proves that he can wear this pasta strainer in his photo due to his religion, his beliefs are different from other people and he shows how his argument relates to his religion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Telani 3A
    In this article, I found it to be funny and very true. Even though atheism isn’t an actual religion that practices something, it should still be respected in its many forms. The government was rightly so to use a psychological evaluation in order to determine his mental ability. In a logical sense, atheism is a religion, just a religion that doesn’t practice something. They also are able to have religious headgear even if it was strainer. This government has respected the beliefs of this person and has allowed the headgear to be in his ID photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kelly 3A
      I agree with Telani. Everyone should be respected for what they believe in. Atheism is just a religion that does not practice anything. The government did the right thing to let Niko Alm wear his "religious headgear."

      Delete
  14. Fitsume 3A
    The article about the Atheist who Won Right to Wear "Religious Pasta Strainer" in ID Photo was very amusing. When I first saw this article I was thinking “what has the world come to?” But as I read the article further I began to realize that people are so set on disproving another person's religion or the existence of a higher power, they would be willing to use the law in their favor. I also thought that this person was crazy for worshiping a spaghetti monster, but as I began to think I realized he was making valid arguments for wearing the spaghetti strainer. It was a true religion and if he believed in that religion then that shouldn't cause a difference between him and any other person wearing a religious head covering. This person used lateral thinking to prove his point in making the argument of wearing the spaghetti strainer. He used rational thinking and logic to prove his point, other than the fact that worshiping a spaghetti is just crazy it is seen as a true religion and should be treated accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jocelyn M/ 3A
    I am actually a bit shock about how the government caved into the reasoning that Niko Alm gave about his Religion but I also found it clever because he actually has faith in his religion and believes it is just as strong and right as traditional religions. The fact that he was allowed to wear his headgear for religious purposes, which was “pastafarian” means that he had arguments that gave clear reasons to his purpose. In the reason chapter it explained how conclusions are not really valid in the end; this connects to how some people may perceive religion as being completely different from an atheist but it does not mean it cannot have reasoning to make it “seem” valid. Alm is not giving facts, instead he is giving arguments to make a valid conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vaskia,3A

    I found it funny that someone would have a religion as a Spaghetti Monster "pastafarian," due to the name of the made up religion. I found it weird that people would worship spaghetti but those who are atheist may say the same about my own religion. Since, those who are religious are able to wear head gear on their head while taking a drivers licenses photo, Alms claimed that his religion was being a "pastafarian" so he was then allowed to ear a colander on his head because it was a religious headgear for those who were involved in the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I do not think that he should of been sent to the psychiatric examination just because he was trying to prove that he could wear whatever headgear he pleased because of his religion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tunji
    3A

    Niko Alm stepped outside of the box and challenged the laws for citizen to wear headgear in there IDs. People are only allowed to wear headgear for religious purposes in Australia, so Alm wanted to use a colander as his head gear to represent the Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is an actual church but it was just meant to be a joke to show that it is no better or worse than a traditional church. Alm was able to wear his colander in his ID picture because it was for “religious” purposes. The government gave up and decided to let him wear it. This shows that any laws can be twisted to a certain extent. Alm made a church as a joke and then he decided he wanted to use a colander as head gear in his ID to show that his church is a “true” religious establishment. This relates to the reason chapter because the government gave up and used deductive reasoning to allow Alm to wear a colander in his ID picture. Deductive reasoning is reasoning on which a conclusion is based on multiple premises. The government allowed Alm to wear the colander after many permises. It took 3 years, but Alm was able to get what he wanted. I found this article interesting because that means that anyone can make there own religion. I was not aware of that but now I am. This article also shows that a weakness of a government is religion because people are allowed to practice their religions freely in most modern countries today. I do not think of this article as controversial. I believe people should be able to do what they want. If they have a reason behind it, they should be able to do it. Alm’s reason was to show that he did not think of traditional churches as any better or worse than his.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uchechi
      3A

      I agree with Tunji to a certain extent. Because Austrian citizens are allowed to wear headgear in state IDs for religious purposes, Alm should have been freely allowed to wear a colander as his “religious headgear” when he asked for permission because he felt it complemented his religious belief, “pastafarian” and his faith's sanctity. Evidently, the Austrian government realized Alm's religious belief was insignificant and posed no threat to Austria. That is why the government finally allowed Alm to wear his "religious pasta strainer" in his photo ID. I do not agree with Tunji's idea that the short blurb was not controversial. In a sense, it poses controversyl because one may argue that an item of their preference is religious, which contradicts the whole point of Alm’s belief in the existence of a spaghetti monster.

      Delete
  18. Jazmine 3A
    My first reaction to the article was shock and confusion because why would the atheist man wearing a pasta strainer on his head and what was his purpose for doing that. The connections to the reason chapter are that the man was trying to prove the belief bias in common, more accepted religions by creating his own. But, the man was making hasty generalizations about other religions simply because he is an atheist and was making the generalizations on the basis of insufficient evidence to support the common religions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Abigail

    I agree with Jennifer's perspective on what Niko Alm did. I personally don't find it offensive, but I understand why others may, and I agree that he has no respect for religions and the people who choose to lead a religious life. I think that it is a direct attack on religion and his stubborn desire to wear a pasta strainer as "religious head gear" was meant to degrade and belittle religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obichi

      I agree with Abigail because the guy's mockery of Christianity is immature and unnecessary. It also makes his argument paradoxical because he is trying to gain respect for his beliefs while mocking other people's beliefs. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs but this freedom, or right, cannot be preserved unless a certain level of respect for each other is maintained

      Delete
    2. It just mocks Christianity? or are you offended because you are a Christian? What about Buddhism? Hinduism? Muslim? It mocks religion. If we can't see Vishnu, God, Allah...etc. and we allow people to wear hijabs and other head coverings, then why not a colander? Or are your emotions getting in the way of your reasoning?

      Delete
  20. Lashawnda Bynum

    My first reaction about the spaghetti monster is a mix of emotions, considering they use this as a fake religion to represent all religions as a joke. When i was skimming over the religion, i was so confused because all i could think of is why would a person worship a monster. What really tripped me up is for the fact that this person was so eager to wear this 'helmet' as a representation of his ideologies. After further reading about the concept and seeing it was a joke, i felt disrespected and figured if this is the way we feel as if we view the ones, such as themselves, who don't have a true religion or rather mutual. I would never criticize, nor does my religion, try to criticize the ones who we view as 'wrong' but we give them direction and whether they take it or not is their own self. In regards to the reason chapter, it shows just because something is valid doesn't means it is true. So, just because our perception deems it as true doesn't mean it is, and this is how we look at each other when we criticize religions. The fact that i would view this individual as 'confused' or 'crazy' proves to show how we all have our own views and that it affects how we emphasize or strongly value our knowledge. In return, we reason based on what our society or religion has taught us. This is why to justify their religion, they also gave a picture whereing it said 'the spaghetti monster exists...existence is perfection........therefore the spagettii monster is perfection. This is to challenge what we already know to mock religions because we reason in the same way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To a certain extent I agree with Lashawnda I do think that he mocked religion but while showing his atheism he was able to prove that if a concept is already developed a person will just go along with his made up "religion". I agree with her when she says that our perception affects the way we view this mas experiment because of our own beliefs.

      Delete
  21. Rebeca 3A
    My first reaction to the short blurb was amazement what people can get by putting it under a developed concept. By just putting it under the umbrella of religion this man was able to get a valid licenses with a pasta drainer on his head. This idea relates to special pleading in the reason chapter. In any other situation this man would have seemed crazy but since he pinned it down to religion creating a double standard he was able to get by.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sunny 3A


    My first reaction to this article i thought that it was a joke and wasn't a serious article. Knowing that it is i believe I'm not the one to judge him or his friend. if thats what he wants to praise and believe that is him as long as it is not dealing with me or hurting me. This Article connects with the story of umbrellogy and the study of it. If it was a true science. Both articles have the details for it. And it connects to the reason chapters for the finder. Deductive reasoning would be one example the title talks about him about wearing a pasta strainer then gets in detail about why.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adriana 3A

    When I first read the article I thought it was ridiculous. Why would someone want to wear a colander on their driver's license just to prove a point? I think that the joke religion is pretty funny. I think that it's cool how they wanted to make a point by creating the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It proves that not everyone has to believe in something for it to be valid or true in someone else's eyes. The atheists who created the religion used reasoning to support their existence. If a traditional church's stories are valid then why can't a nontraditional church's stories also be valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Constance 3a

      I agree with Adriana. Given the nature of most religions, it makes absolutely no sense for one religion to acknowledge another. For example, a Christian can accept that a another person is Buddhist, they would be going against their religion to accept Buddhism itself. As a result, religion its constantly challenged by other religions and people. Niko Alm's actions made other religious people feel like their religion's validity would be in danger if others started to accept things that seems absolutely ridiculous.

      Delete
  24. Jennifer
    Reply to Stanley,
    I strongly agree with Stanley. It is like he was trying to prove a point by wearing a spaghetti container on his head. However, this can be offensive to those who believe strongly in a religion just like Stanley. It was not necessary to go out of his way and offend those who belong to a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ashley

    My initial reaction to reading this article was disbelief. Immediately when I read the title "Atheist wins right to wear PASTA STRAINER in ID photo" I thought it was fluke, a propaganda to make a funny article. I would never think that worshiping the spaghetti monster would be considered a religion. I read further into the article and it stated that it was a joke religion. I then considered the article offensive. Its point was show how atheists viewed religion. As an made up ridiculous story, that has no rational basis. As I am now writing this and thinking about it more it is very offensive. They are ridiculing religion in a passive way. I think it is disrespectful and ignorant. I can see how this man was able to wear his “religious” headwear in his photo ID. This can greatly apple to the reason chapter where we use false analogy. Because they use the word “Church” of the flying spaghetti monster then we consider it as religion, and the law is supportive of religious means. Because of the word ‘church’ it can be associated with all religions. They have someone they worship and pray to. So they could presumably assume that it is a viable religion just by the church and the customs.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alicia

    My first thought was "Why the heck was this man wearing a colander on his head?" Then after reading a bit I thought that this man went insane, was put into an insane asylum, and converted all of his mates into “pastafarians”. But then by clicking the link in the article that stated “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” and then saw that these apparent crazy people raised over $2,000,000 in loans to support their cause. On a link on the website, it stated that “Existence is perfection. Everything that the Monster does is perfection. So therefore, the monster exists.”… That may be one of the non-logical arguments that I have ever heard. Who was the person that decided that existence was perfection?? The last time that I checked, existence was FAR from perfect. This argument has no validity in it, stated in the reason chapter that it required. It is completely fine that they want to believe in this monster, but DO NOT drag others in the sinking crazy boat.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stanley
    Religiously, I do not agree with Niko Alm's "Free minded" experiment. He is undermining and degrading the actual religions that exist in the world by reflecting his mock religion as an actual religion. This is highly offensive to me because I take my religion very seriously. However politically, Alm did not do anything wrong and was able to prove his faith as real, and the government has no say in what is and is not a religion, he should have been able to wear his strainer earlier. My first reaction was humorous until I understood the implications of the action. The reason chapter spoke on truth and validity. His religion may not have been necessarily true because it was a joke, his argument was valid in its approach.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Uchechi
    3A

    Austrian atheist Niko Alm should not have been strained by Austrian government for three years and should not have had to undergo a psychiatric examination, to win the right to wear “religious pasta strainer” in his ID photo. Because Austrian citizens are allowed to wear headgear in state IDs for religious purposes, at the point Alm asked to wear a pasta strainer on his head for his driver’s license photo, Alm should have been freely allowed to wear a colander as his “religious headgear” because it complemented his religious belief, “pastafarian.” Although his religious belief was very eccentric, Alm posed no threat society. However, the issue may have posed controversy because one may argue that an item of their preference is religious, which contradicts the whole point of Alm’s belief in the existence of a spaghetti monster. The short blurb connects to lateral thinking section of the reason chapter because Alm took a position in his faith’s sanctity, and found it difficult to settle with a valid Austrian drivers license, incomplete with a colander. The Austrian government failed to adopt a more creative way of thinking in order to search for better solutions to the problem. Despite this, I am glad the Austrian government let go of the irrelevant matter and I am glad Alm was allowed to wear his “religious pasta strainer” in his ID photo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Constance 3A

    When I first read the story about Niko Alm, I thought his actions were hilarious. I can understand why the Austrian Government gave Alm such a hard time because to challenge a set law or regulation is a very hard thing to do and it is also hard to get others to understand and accept your way of thinking. Niko Alm used circular reasoning to support his claim by essentially saying that if they can do something on account of their religionthat would normally not be allowed, then I should be able to do the same on account of my religion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Madalyn 3A
    This article is about a man who is trying to have his religion recognized by the Austrian government. He is also trying to show that his religion should not be passed because it’s not what people consider normal. The psychiatric tests they made him take also showed that they thought this guy was crazy. But that also shows how people will try to disprove any religion that isn’t ordinary like Christianity. This also showed me that people would do anything to see the extent of the law. And seeing the extent of the law shows that people are still closed minded about other people and their religion. Even though praising a spaghetti monster seems weird it is still someone else’s religion and that should be recognized as a religion with the full extent of the law.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for posting!!

Swift