Monday, March 13, 2006

Sangha of the Smurfs

Well, this is awfully cozy. Far be it from me to bust up a great big fuzzy group hug. If Walt Whitman and plenty of affirmation is what you want, God love you.

It's odd, though. You guys have read a book by a punk who said, question everything ... doubt everything ... test everything ... take nobody's word for nothin', but find out for yourselves what's so. Bash and crash and take the big adventure. Presumably that attracted you, and here you are. And some among you are willing to be challenged, and others are not. Not everyone can be or wants to be or should be. Okay.

But don't pretend that Big Questions have nothing to do with Zen. What is man? Is there will? How do we define tolerance? Is Zen materialist, or not? Is Buddhist compassion anything like love, or not? Some of you dismiss such questions as mere posturing, just argumentative crap. But these questions have everything to do with Zen, and everything to do with how I can practice and how I can live my life, and I'll apologize to nobody for delving into such things.

If that's not your cup, fine, there's always Stevie Nicks. But such things have mattered to a couple of millennia of Buddhists so far, and I'll ask you to take my word for it that they matter intensely to me. Not that a poem-of-the-day forum is the place to discuss them.

Poetry may be the highest aesthetic achievement of mankind, and in the form of pop music it has an emotional grab that nothing else can match. But don't kid yourselves. It isn't Zen.

Lyric verse is a celebration of the world and the things in it. A good poet sees particulars, he notices things in themselves, he is attached to the wild variety in this world and is drawn to the uniqueness of this because it isn't that.

I love lyric poetry and in the past I've lived my life by it. I've published a bit of it in good journals -- not much, but some. Poetry is a celebration of this world in all its gorgeous, chaotic concreteness.

But this is exactly what Zen tells you isn't real. It's a celebration of the attachments from which Buddhism wants to release you. It's a love affair with the world that Zen calls an illusion. It's fine to tell yourselves that there's "crossover" between poetry and Zen, but so sorry, there is not. Not unless you debase both poetry and Zen to mere sentimentalism, and to do that is to commit two crimes at once.

Two crimes, guys. Because poetry is no more cuddly than Zen is. A while back, I mentioned that I had first met my wife while doing battle over each other's writing. Well, the writing in qestion was our poetry. Poetry is a lifetime endeavor and it has its own calculus. It's not all subjective: there's much to critique, to debate, to brawl about, much in it that can be done right or wrong. To read Seamus Heaney and go, "Ooh, hey, nice," is to miss everything.

So if Zen is too hard, and you want to get away from thinking, then poetry is really no escape. Just thought I'd mention it.

As for myself, I'm fine in any case. There are serious people around me, both online and IRL, so if the smurfs take over Flapping Mouths, eh, no problem.

28 Comments:

At March 13, 2006, Blogger cromanyak said...

I think your right. The poety thing got a little out of hand, but poetry and Buddhism are not oil and water. What about Basho?

"When I'm in Kyoto, and I hear the cuckoo sing, I long for Kyoto."

Some poets present ideas in a way that makes you use your mind rather than spoon feeding you.

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger Anatman said...

Dear Smurf Killa (rot-13):

Hopefully, this will remain a collaborative, evolving project. There is a long list of folks who are registered as contributors, including yourself (rot-13). So if it seems to be moving in a direction you do not like, it is a result of your own inaction.

I like your post as to what is zen and what is not. Regarding the questions you pose ("What is man? Is there will? How do we define tolerance? Is Zen materialist, or not? Is Buddhist compassion anything like love, or not?"), I would love to read your take on any one of these questions, and open it for discussion.

Please continue to post new topics on the main board, and help evolve this forum.

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

I enjoyed Rot-13's critique of the Flapping Mouths blog. Although, let's face it, there is some absurdity in his (or her) overarching statements about what Zen is or is not. Neither Zen nor poetry can be neatly pinned down.
Zen, in particular, means different things to different people.
To some it is a religion, to others a practice, to others it connotes a state of mind.
Poetry, when written a certain way and read a certain way, has at least as much chance of knocking our consciousness into the present as "the big questions." Or a koan.
I'd argue that the "big questions" that Rot-13 alleges have been discussed throughout the ages, are exactly the kinds of topics that go nowhere and create lots of wheel spinning and useless knowledge.
It is, supposedly, attention to the present and an intimate understanding of moment to moment experience which will allow us to see, if anything, the pointlessness of those kinds of discussions.
Personally, I find the poetry boring and the arguments more interesting.
However, I am not going to make excuses about how Zen it is to argue philosophy. If you are present when you argue, or read, or take a shit, than I suppose it is Zen....

-Aaron

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger oxeye said...

Rot.. No one really has any idea about how to carry on without Brad around to steer things. As far as the big questions go, they do matter and we all ask them. But there are very few people around here now who have any business even trying to answer them. And if they do they better be ready to go to war over it. Even Brad seemingly tired of that after a while.
So where do we go from here?
We can criticize others for not keeping us entertained with worthwhile topics, or we can write something "serious" ourselves and post it up for consideration.
I see your name up there on the contributors list..

Go for it. :)

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

I dont know that Brad steered things better than anyone else. But he certainly wrote better and had much more interesting things to say than most.
It could be (and seemed to me) that he also perhaps had some actual, experiential knowledge that went a bit beyond what the average Zen buffoon throws about. You know, the usual clichés that keep popping up regarding shedding of the ego, or someone talking about how all thoughts are “just thoughts.”
Or on the other side, the clichés of how important it is to practice “right action” and so forth.
The most interesting writers on spirituality, in my stoopid opinion, say things in a different way and Brad did that. He communicated with humor and irreverence, and at times, the things he said might bring me into the present for a moment. That is always how I judge the worth of this kind of writing.
The fact that no one here is currently doing that (much) is expected. What is lacking is more along the lines of imagination and actual knowledge.
Myself included most of all.

 
At March 13, 2006, Blogger cromanyak said...

While we're on the subject of critiqing(is that the right spelling?). I think we should keep an eye on how much we post the words of others. It's hard to have a discussion about pieces like that since the person isn't actually there to answer quesitons about it. You can see a major difference in the amount of comments generated by these posts compared to the ones where people are using their own words.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger Jinzang said...

Better watch your terminology. "Smurfs" is how members of soc.motss refer to themselves.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger Dan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

Anatman, when you say,

"...if it seems to be moving in a direction you do not like, it is a result of your own inaction."

Well, I dunno, man. "Inaction" is kind of a funny way to describe my doings so far. Most of the Big Questions I mentioned are ones that have been yammered about already, by my long-winded self. There's plenty more to say, of course.

You're right: the collaborative blog is sort of a "let's see what evolves" proposition. I'm not worried about trying to engineer the place. There's already been too much of that. Darwin rules: My post isn't a specification, but a specimen -- just another topic emerging from the ooze.

BTW I tip my hat to you as the new admin. Though this place was supposed to be about Zen, not about poetry, I'll say this: Hill Tribe, Part II is well shaped and well textured, layered, deceptively pretty. Strong ending. Nicely done.

I'm guessing that as admin you have everybody's email addresses. Could you drop me a note, please? Small technical thing.

gniz, you said,

"there is some absurdity in ... overarching statements about what Zen is or is not. Neither Zen nor poetry can be neatly pinned down. Zen, in particular, means different things to different people."

Um....

If you want to say "Happiness is a girlfriend with stiletto heels," fine, you get to; and if you want to say, "Happiness is not a girlfriend with stiletto heels," you get to say that, too.

You're right, Zen can't be pinned down. But you have to start being careful when you get to the part about "means different things to different people." Because yes, it does, but only within limits. Happiness can mean whatever you want, but Zen can't.

You have to start with "what it means" before you can do the "what it means to me" part. Yes, as you say, to some people Zen simply connotes a state of mind. But hey, guess what, simple answer: they're wrong. Zen is not a state of mind.

Yep, that is an overarching statement about what Zen is not, but it's also so obvious it's hardly worth making. Just like "Christianity is a state of mind" -- no it isn't, it's whole bunch of stuff leading to a state of mind. "If you are present when you take a shit, it is Zen" -- no. Zen is that gigantic philosophical construct telling you why taking a shit this way means nothing but taking a shit that way means everything.

Zen's antiphilosophical rhetoric is supported by an elaborate doctrinal base. Not my fault, I didn't make up the Mahayana.

Anyway, for the sake of discussion I did make some big statements, yes. Notice that I didn't try to define Zen -- I'm not quite that foolhardy -- but I did list off some things that "have to do with" it. You say these are matters of "wheel spinning and useless knowledge." This is precisely why I broached the subject. See, some of this stuff is just academic, yes, but some of it is absolutely crucial -- and yet some Zennies are willing to dismiss all of it, every single bit, as "just" philosophy. That's nuts.

No, I know you're not one of those people. You know that some ideas matter. Yeah, I do like the minutia, and I know that's just me. But Zen is inescapably abstract, and it's just false for any Zennie to smirk about "dry philosophy" and then recite the Heart Sutra.

But that's a topic for a separate post.

Oxeye, man, you actually said,

"As far as the big questions go, they do matter and we all ask them. But there are very few people around here now who have any business even trying to answer them."

You have just got to be kidding me. Please tell me you're kidding?

Because, you know ... everybody's got the right to have a whack at The Questions, 'cause it's kind of hard to have any kind of spiritual life at all if you don't. And don't get me wrong, Brad's fine: he keeps the pot spicy and enjoys his role as hellion. But he is the guy whose book said, "You must all, each of you, ultimately answer everything for yourselves."

Where do we go from here? Eh, I'm not so concerned about it. For the moment, here we are.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger Anatman said...

rot-13, rock on. I'm not sure if I have your email address or not. Let me check...

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

Jinzang pointed out,

"Smurfs" is how members of soc.motss refer to themselves.

Ewps.

Owell.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

Rot-13

Good points all around and well made. You're right, most Zen scholars would probably agree with you that taking a shit and paying attention is not Zen.
Yet, when you get those goofy Zen stories about the master answers the question of what is zen with: "when hungry eat, when thirsty, drink, when tired sleep" or whatever.
Meaning, of course, just be present.
So, i guess I can say that as far as i am concerned (for now), I would rather learn Zen from the guy who is HERE and paying attention NOW than the guy who can describe to me in intimate detail all of the foundational, theoretical aspects of the religion.
Some people learn Jazz by listening to the music and playing, and some learn it by being taught theory at Berkeley School of Music.
I'd rather sit down with Coltrane or Miles Davis and jam with the masters, personally.

 
At March 14, 2006, Blogger Jules said...

But Zen is inescapably abstract, and it's just false for any Zennie to smirk about "dry philosophy" and then recite the Heart Sutra.

I didn't "smirk about dry philosophy," nor did I suggest it was without value. I simply wanted something more direct in addition to the abstract. Poetry.

You can keep trying to put words in my mouth all day long. It is getting pretty old, though. Maybe you should try to read more carefully.

I never suggested this blog should only be about poetry, and was there something I said that made you think we should only post pretty, flowery poetry? Look at my profile. If you would like to post System of a Down lyrics here, I'm all for it, they're one of my favorite bands.

Steve Hagen roshi commented on the Whitman poem I posted earlier, "There was a Child Went Forth," and suggested he thought Whitman may have been an awakened being, just based on the perspective demonstrated in that poem. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but maybe it had some value for someone else.

You seem to think Buddhist compassion amounts to trite words and fake pasted-on smiles. The result of brainwashing, or at the very least unthinking, uncritical acceptance of flowery dogma. That's fine, but I'd suggest that you consider the possibility that to some extent, your cynicism and aversion to "cuddliness" is also the result of conditioning.

Yes, cuddliness can get annoying if it's overdone. But so can rude, overly assertive posturing. We recently had a little swing from one extreme to the other. Hopefully we can stay a little more balanced from here on out.

Poetry is a celebration of this world in all its gorgeous, chaotic concreteness.

But this is exactly what Zen tells you isn't real. It's a celebration of the attachments from which Buddhism wants to release you. It's a love affair with the world that Zen calls an illusion. It's fine to tell yourselves that there's "crossover" between poetry and Zen, but so sorry, there is not. Not unless you debase both poetry and Zen to mere sentimentalism, and to do that is to commit two crimes at once.


No.

Zen is a finger pointing at the moon. Poetry is another finger pointing at the same moon. Zen doesn't call the world an illusion. The world is real. Your ideas about the world are illusion, and you haven't yet realized the extent to which you confuse those ideas with reality. Neither have I, for that matter. But I'm working on it.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

gniz, you said,

"Yet, when you get those goofy Zen stories about the master answers the question of what is zen with: "when hungry eat, when thirsty, drink, when tired sleep" or whatever. Meaning, of course, just be present."

Well, yeah. The practice of Zen, like the practice of any religion, is dead simple. Karen's not wrong, all the words can get in the way. Zen: sit there. Be present. Boom. Done. That's the practice.

But there's a lot to say about what's behind that simple practice, unless you want to take an awful lot for granted. "Just sit." Why? "There is no self." You're kidding, right? "All things are one." Uh-huh. "Karma means that you reap what you sow." Right: rich sinners, poor saints.... "Suffering is caused by ignorance." Are you sure? "There is reincarnation." Bullshit. "There is no reincarnation." Bullshit.

See, all this stuff is not obvious, and it all affects whether you sit and why you sit. When the old masters said, "Just practice," they said it to people who had the Buddhist answers to all this stuff in their backgrounds.

And yeah, they said "Just practice and you'll get it." But these same guys have left us a zillion books explaining what it is we're supposed to "get." Master "Do Your Freakin' Zazen" Hakuin left a thousand pages about the Blue Cliff collection (which is a hundred koans). Then, God help us, there's Dogen explaining proper needlework.

That's all peripheral in a sense, yes. But some of it matters and it's about all we can talk about here in a text medium. So....

Shrug.

"I'd rather sit down with Coltrane or Miles Davis and jam with the masters, personally."

Amen, no argument. But that requires IRL contact, face to face. Which can be hard to find, but is worth looking for.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

Jules said,

"You can keep trying to put words in my mouth all day long. It is getting pretty old, though. Maybe you should try to read more carefully."

Jules, I've been trying to think of a nice way to say this. No luck, so....

Sorry, man: it's not about you. Some things aren't.

I kept my mouth shut through a bunch of unsubtle passive-aggressive messages, a bunch of spiteful messages, a bunch of neurotic, handwringing messages, and a bunch of sweet, warm, superficial messages with poems in them. And when I finally wrote, I wrote about the whole place, and dude, you just weren't the first thing on my mind.

I just lumped the whole week's experience together in my head, and wrote. I didn't attribute anything to you: when I do that, I quote. Have you noticed how very careful I am with my quotes when I write messages here? Why is that? It's because I try very hard not to do the thing you say I'm doing.

And if it comes to reading carefully, you might not want to cast that first stone. You've extrapolated some pretty amazing things from what I said.

"I never suggested this blog should only be about poetry, and was there something I said that made you think we should only post pretty, flowery poetry?"

Never said you did. Never said anything about flowery poetry.

"Look at my profile. If you would like to post System of a Down lyrics here, I'm all for it"

Nah, that would be illegal (as is most of the poetry that's been posted here). But SOAD is no antidote to "flowery." At bottom, they're as naive and starry-eyed as any young troubadors, just louder. (Now, don't go saying I hate them. They're brilliant. I play them loud enough to rattle the windows.)

"Steve Hagen roshi commented on the Whitman poem I posted earlier, "There was a Child Went Forth," and suggested he thought Whitman may have been an awakened being, just based on the perspective demonstrated in that poem. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but maybe it had some value for someone else."

There you go again. I do like it, it's a wonderful poem by an admirable poet, though it'd be a cold day in hell before I called him an "awakened being." What did I say to make you think I didn't like that poem?

No, never mind, that way lies madness. But this:

"You seem to think Buddhist compassion amounts to trite words and fake pasted-on smiles."

Good God! Jules, Jules, pay attention: I do not think this. I never said this. I never suggested this. I never even vaguely, remotely hinted this. To get this from what I wrote, either you had to be asleep at the wheel or you had to willfully misread me. Or something.

I think you're anxious to put the worst possible spin on whatever I say, because you've decided that I'm a Bad Guy -- just as you're willing to put an impossibly good spin on something Thich Nhat Hanh says, because he's a Good Guy. It's a dishonest reading of the text in both cases. It's as false to him as to me.

No, I'm not insulting you.

"...but I'd suggest that you consider the possibility that to some extent, your cynicism and aversion to "cuddliness" is also the result of conditioning."

I'm not a cynic. And I'm not un-cuddly. And if ever anyone's going to escape his conditioning, it's going to be by clear thinking, and that, Jules, is the only game in town. Chuck that out, and then how are you going to make your way in the realm of ideas?

"Zen is a finger pointing at the moon. Poetry is another finger pointing at the same moon."

Oh great Zeus, not the finger and the moon again. How I wish Zen could get away from that cursed finger and that blasted moon.

But okay, leaving that aside.... Poetry does not point at the same moon as Zen. As I said: the only way you can pretend that it does is by turning both poetry and Zen into cheap sentiment. And to do that is to lose the Zen and crush the poetry, and if you want to do that, fine, but don't expect nobody to squawk about it.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

I think it would be a momentus occassion if Rot-13 and Jules could admit that this little "back-and-forth" argument type thingy they are having is caused by BOREDOM.
And not paying attention.
I can say for nearly certain that these kinds of discussions (fun as they are) are a direct result of NOT wanting to pay attention to the moment.
I say, let's acknowledge that before we continue the discussion.
Now THAT would be profound.
Aaron

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

And yes, I wasn't paying attention when i wrote that last post, for the record.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger Jules said...

I think I was paying attention. And there shouldn't be any more back-and-forth, I've said all I needed to say.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

Jules, no offense meant by my last posts by the way. Most of what I write is either half-joking, or at least with the underlying premise that I don’t really know WTF I am talking about.
On the other hand, I think that mini-exchange between you and Rot-13 as well as a lot of the exchanges that went on in Brad’s blog are indicative of what is going on in the world and in our heads.
We are bored, and uncomfortable (and yes, afraid) so we create little miniature dramas to draw our attention away from the discomfort.
People’s insistence on proclaiming their argument, views or statements as “important” rather than acknowledging the sheer unimportance and silliness of it all keeps the whole thing going.
But one of the hardest things to do is really look at ourselves and laugh at the absurdity of our discussions, views, arguments, opinions. We are all so damn intelligent and it is a point of pride for most of us, myself very much included.
Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there and see what others think.

Aaron

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger Jules said...

I agree, and no offense was taken.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger Anatman said...

gniz: "Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there and see what others think."

Fully agree. Conflict is fun. Games are usually based on competition, play fighting, and mock domination. Probably much more so for men than for women, though.

Action, mystery, and horror are very popular in movies and books. Because they entertain. The most popular video games are violent.

CNN had the highest viewership ever when covering the war. "Gee, that looks fun!"

Soft slow love making can be very fulfilling and satisfying, but at some point, you want to throw in some wrestling moves!

Little boys will play "nice" with toy cars for only a brief period before they start crashing the cars into eachother and imagining spectacular devastation and fiery carnage.

In talking to or counseling neurotic acquaintences with tons of "problems," I sometimes get the distinct impression that much of the neurosis and problems are self-indulgent. Self-created entertainment.

 
At March 15, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

gniz said,

"I can say for nearly certain that these kinds of discussions (fun as they are) are a direct result of NOT wanting to pay attention to the moment. I say, let's acknowledge that before we continue the discussion. Now THAT would be profound."

Nope, Aaron, sorry, can't do it. The idea that dialog and debate just boil down to dicksizing? -- that's just an absolutely soulkilling notion.

Now, if you say it's easy to get an inflated idea of the importance of it all, and especially of one's own importance ... yeah, that's true. I'm as susceptible as anybody. None of these discussions matters as much as, say, feeding the world's hungry or [insert your pet crusade here].

But that's not to say it isn't worth talking; and it's certainly not to say debate is about dominance, or discussion is absurd, or people only wrangle ideas out of boredom. Nope nope.

Speaking just for myself: I'm interested, and there are some good minds here.

 
At March 16, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

Rot 13,

You said: Nope, Aaron, sorry, can't do it. The idea that dialog and debate just boil down to dicksizing? -- that's just an absolutely soulkilling notion.

I don’t think I stated that all discussion and debate is a form of “dicksizing”, as you put it. If you read my posts, I say that certain types of discussion and argument/debate are caused by boredom and discomfort. Now, maybe that is not true for YOU. I can’t say what is true for you, I can only speak to my own experience and what I observe when watching people engage in these kinds of discussions.
It’s interesting that in the abstract, all the Buddhists and spiritualists will discuss ego in all of its forms with such expertise and insight. But you try it—ask any of these expert talkers to ADMIT when they are actually engaging their ego in some respect, or feeling discomfort or fear—they’ll never f’ing admit it.
NEVER.
Okay, I’ll say that I am feeling discomfort RIGHT NOW. I would rather type these nonsense words than actually relax and pay attention to my breath and so forth. Yes, I could do both. I could write stupid words AND pay attention. But normally, I find that when I pay attention and relax, I don’t need to engage in arguments/debate/pissing contests, if that’s what they are.
Maybe you are different. Maybe the whole world isn’t running on self-importance and denial.
You tell me.

Aaron

 
At March 16, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

gniz said,

"I don’t think I stated that all discussion and debate is a form of “dicksizing”, as you put it."

No, you really didn't put it that way, and if you meant something else then I'm sorry to have misread you.

Certain kinds of discussion? Sure, if you mean to say that flamewars are ego-driven and that the participants should probably find some better way to spend their time, I can't disagree with that. And as I said, I'm susceptible.

It's just hard for people to tell when I'm flaming. Most people only get really tedious in an effor to smack someone else down, whereas I'm tedious all the time. It gets me in a lot of trouble.

Yesterday's conversation? You judge. Oh, wait: you already have. Maybe you're right.

"Maybe the whole world isn’t running on self-importance and denial. You tell me."

I'm madly cynical about people, but: no, it isn't. I really don't think it is.

 
At March 16, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

About the "whole world running on denial and self-importance", that is probably a rather broad and innacurate statement on my part. It may be, but I have no idea.
However, you put those "big" issues that a lot of activist, New Age types get riled up about such as poverty, hunger, human rights, I am going to go out on a limb and say that much of the discussion in these areas is fueled by the very same stuff that fuels internet flame wars.
I think Brad was trying to say something similar (and got flamed for it). I happen to feel that I have observed it in others and directly experienced it myself. So there!!

Hehe

Aaron

 
At March 16, 2006, Blogger gniz said...

JUST TO FURTHER MY POINT, HERE'S A BIT FROM THE GOSSIP COLUMNS...

Clooney's blog spat with Huffington: After a post signed by George Clooney appeared on Arianna Huffington's blog on Monday, Clooney has been trying to make it clear he didn't actually write the post himself -- and things have gotten heated between the two. The post was a compilation of Clooney quotes from the Guardian and "Larry King Live" put together by the Huffington Post, and while Huffington says she had explicit permission to run it, Clooney claims his words were taken out of context without his approval. "Arianna asked for permission to use the quotes and he gave it to her. What he didn't give permission for was the use of his quotes without source attributions to make it appear that he wrote a blog for her site," says Stan Rosenfield, Clooney's rep. Huffington is calling the whole thing an "honest misunderstanding," but Clooney's not entirely comforted. Huffington "said some things that I won't share," Clooney told Lowdown, "but she did tell me that this could be bad for me -- bad for my career. Well, screw you! I'm not going to be threatened by Arianna Huffington!"

 
At March 16, 2006, Blogger rot-13 said...

gniz said,

"However, you put those "big" issues that a lot of activist, New Age types get riled up about such as poverty, hunger, human rights, I am going to go out on a limb and say that much of the discussion in these areas is fueled by the very same stuff that fuels internet flame wars."

Man, you ain't wrong. Truer words was never spoke.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home