Tears Roll Down

A place for discussions that don't fit elsewhere.
daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Mon May 08, 2006 7:51 am

Celia

Just to clarify, the words are not Shout's own but from a song by Tears for Fears and therefore not his to dedicate or otherwise. It's called 'Laid So Low (Tears Roll Down)'. They also wrote a song called 'Shout'.

AntonR
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Postby AntonR » Mon May 08, 2006 10:38 am

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Tue May 09, 2006 12:04 pm

I have been away over the weekend and I am horrified at the ferocity of the attacks on the Ravesis during this time. Whilst I can understand the depth of hatred towards the SES I can see no reasons for this to be turned so viciously towards individuals and especially people who have worked hard in themselves to right the wrongs of the past and have also brought the ills of the Organisation to the worlds attention.

To the Ravesis, I admire the courage and conviction as well as the dignity with which you have conducted yourselves in response to this tirade. I should like to remind everyone that we owe a big thanks to the Ravesis for the part they played in the exposing the SES and its related organisations. Without their participation twenty years ago we would have not even had the book the Secret Cult, a book that has done nothing but good in exposing the SES and its childrens day schools.

This site is not specifically for healing but many seem to find that writing about their experiences is cathartic. There is no reason why this should be limited to a subset of the people here and there is no reason why an ex-member of the SES should not find their own healing by partcipating on this forum.

Whilst much of what is discussed here is highly emotive and it is right that people be allowed to express how they feel, directing attacks at individuals can not be tolerated. To attack and individual for any reason is not acceptable. To do so simply diminishes the effectiveness of the message we wish to convey. We must not reduce ourselves to the same level as those who did wrong by us by doing wrong by others.

Bonsai

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

shout's exile

Postby ross nolan » Tue May 09, 2006 2:46 pm

Perhaps I can make a few comments not in support of Shout as such but possibly in sympathy with what I think he is trying to convey.

It is one thing to discuss a subject in a detached, almost clinical , sort of fashion and much of the time this is the most likely course to arrive at a 'balanced' and 'sensible' view of things .

Emotion can 'cloud' judgement and impede the 'civilized' discourse of matters that can, inconvieniently, be intrinsically viscerial and literally 'gut wrenching' when you recall some event in your OWN experience -- the alternative method of 'sober' intellectual discussion devoid of any real feeling or involvement can seem to be deep and meaningful( and oh so well controlled ) in the written word but really be barren.

An example of an intellectual discussion from some years ago concerned the ongoing debate about the 'best' method to transport slaves in sailing ships ; the two 'schools' split along the lines of 'loose pack' and 'tight pack'.

The 'loose packers' maintained that the better method was to load fewer slaves at the start of a journey but lose only a few to disease on the way whereas the 'tight pack' school maintained that packing in many more slaves would result in offloading more at the end even though a lot more would die from the overcrowding .

A quite engaging intellectual argument for those so inclined ,no doubt , but seen in quite different and 'abusive' 'emotional' ' unseemly' terms by those who saw the real human misery involved in both cases. ( no one apparently asked the slaves ...)

Subtle arguments over the 'real' teachings of Vedanta and the subtleties of the Upanishads (as taught by the SES as opposed to the 'true' Gurus in India for example) have similarities to the 'loose pack' versus 'tight pack' schools of thought (and practice).

SES seems to have carried out it's 'experiment' with little concern for the 'subjects' but a sort of detached curiosity as to how it would all turn out -- the 'two hands of the potter' analogy was an apt description by Lambie of how he viewed the moulding of the children .

I think Shout is outraged by the implied lack of any real concern for the damage that some screwball, pretentious ,"intellectual", 'vision' carried out by the (adult)devotees of the SES/SOP had on real people like himself

To NOT repudiate the whole underpinning of Eastern mysticism that caused the psychological abuse of the children in particular but to attribute it to some minor 'mistakes' in interpretation from the same ,undoubted, true source of real wisdom is, perhaps, understandably upsetting to a real victim of that stupidity.

I was once in an 'arthouse' Cinema (the old Valhalla in Melbourne) to view the harrowing German film "Das Boot" - about a submarine crew - when, during a clip showing Hitler , a woman in the audience suddenly began yelling and shouting violently at the screen -- she had apparently been personally affected by the Nazi regime and triggered her memories of real palpable hate and loathing for Adolf Hitler .

It occurred to me that Hitler was merely a historical figure who elicited absolutely no emotional reaction when I saw him whereas this woman had suffered personally and had real memories that caused her to boil over with deep seated loathing and hate . One can only imagine what might have precipitated her reaction but I am sure that HER response was the genuine one and that mine was the shallow and callous or at best unmoved and clinical mere observation. ( if a picture of a school bully or some other minor 'enemy' of mine had been projected I too would have, involuntarily, had real feelings of anger and hate)

I can similarly hate the methods of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult because I personally lost a great deal to them after they took over my mother's mind with promises of "the truth" and eternal life etc -- just like the SES and every other manipulative cult .

-- It IS hard to see how anyone could espouse such deliberately deceptive and tragically advantage-taking mumbo jumbo any time after they themselves became personally aware of the deceit and lies behind it all . New recruits always come in 'starry eyed' and gullible and will have a honeymoon period where they fall for the secretive, esoteric 'hidden knowledge' thing, the 'chosen' people who alone have this great truth and so on -- the 'teachers' are under no such illusion though and their involvement is not forgiveable as simple credulousness or wanting to believe and belong. They know better.

Before condemning Shout I think that his reaction is understandable when seen from the point of one who was personally betrayed and abused .

Some things simply are not "balanced" -- for example gassing Jews can not be 'justified' or 'rationalized' (but can and is usually looked at without any real emotion that would be appropriate - a non commital sadness or detached revulsion might be the most felt) - the same warped 'master race' thinking is detectable in the SES "Advaita Vedanta" doctrines and just about every other cult though .

Why not get genuinely angry in this case?

The slave might express anger and outrage at the whole debate about slave trading -- the non believer can see how both Christianity, Islam and Hindu beliefs will inevitably lead to blood being spilt and lives being ruined and it is not just because of minor disgreements over articles of faith .

Just about every 'justification' of religions revolve around what are in fact humanist actions( caring for the poor etc ) and just about every evil derives from the doctrines themselves (kill the infidel, stone the heretic etc) -- the taking of slaves was justified by the Muslim organizers on the basis that they were 'non believers' (the real meaning of "Kafir" usually taken to mean 'black')

So much misery and evil carried out in the name of enlightenment (including the Hindu version) -- Shout has personally felt this loss and naturally rails against the defending of a destructive superstition -- if the purveying of such damaging rubbish is not actually repudiated in full then the 'objection' to the system that hurt Shout and others so much is merely one of details and degree (personalities as much as anything ) .

I find his reaction understandable and the appropriatness of harsh language has to be matched to the actual behaviour and damage involved -- Is it an embarrassment for a child victim of Hitler to use swear words in public ? What is the 'appropriate' use of swearing and unambiguous condemnation? It is only 'jaw,jaw' rather than 'war,war' and the option is open to show , logically, that the only fault with the SES/SOP in Australia at least was the personality of the leader and a little too much exuberance in applying the principles of the 'path to truth'. (as Anton seems to imply in continuing to support Vedic teaching and practice while condeming the conduct of the early school )

While Shout is 'gagged' himself perhaps the alternative view in favour of the basic Vedic 'philosophy' can be put and we can evaluate the contrary argument ?

(interestingly the famous "Dreyfus affair" is currently being displayed at the Jewish museum in Melbourne - Emil Zola took up the cause of the wrongly punished Dreyfus whilst he was in exile and forced public interest in the injustice done to him --- )
Skeptic

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Re: shout's exile

Postby bonsai » Tue May 09, 2006 3:20 pm

ross nolan wrote:I think Shout is outraged by the implied lack of any real concern for the damage that some screwball, pretentious ,"intellectual", 'vision' carried out by the (adult)devotees of the SES/SOP had on real people like himself


ross nolan wrote:I can similarly hate the methods of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult because I personally lost a great deal to them after they took over my mother's mind with promises of "the truth" and eternal life etc -- just like the SES and every other manipulative cult .


ross nolan wrote:Before condemning Shout I think that his reaction is understandable when seen from the point of one who was personally betrayed and abused .

Some things simply are not "balanced" -- for example gassing Jews can not be 'justified' or 'rationalized' (but can and is usually looked at without any real emotion that would be appropriate - a non commital sadness or detached revulsion might be the most felt) - the same warped 'master race' thinking is detectable in the SES "Advaita Vedanta" doctrines and just about every other cult though .

Why not get genuinely angry in this case?


ross nolan wrote:So much misery and evil carried out in the name of enlightenment (including the Hindu version) -- Shout has personally felt this loss and naturally rails against the defending of a destructive superstition -- if the purveying of such damaging rubbish is not actually repudiated in full then the 'objection' to the system that hurt Shout and others so much is merely one of details and degree (personalities as much as anything ) .

I find his reaction understandable and the appropriatness of harsh language has to be matched to the actual behaviour and damage involved...


Ross, you are spot on. Shout does have the right to express his anger and hurt and frustration. That he has been hurt through his experiences of St James and the SES is entirely unacceptable. I know from my own time at St James that there were plenty of people that were treated badly, who were abused and who were treated without dignity and respect.

I don't expect them to forget. I don't expect them to suffer in silence. Likewise I don't expect them to attack or harm other people.

Without doubt many of the people posting on this forum have been wronged. The extent of the hurt felt by some has still yet to be heard. These stories must be allowed to be heard and the emotions felt must be acknowledged.

This process must be allowed to continue but it must not be allowed to hurt others in the process

Bonsai

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Tue May 09, 2006 8:19 pm

I would have posted about the words of the Tears for Fears song earlier but assumed that people knew what it was.

In case you didn't know, the members of TFT were for a long time advocates of Primal Scream therapy, which explains the words to the song "Shout" - (shout, shout, let it all out/these are the things I can dream about) so unless I am mistaken, Shout himself may find value in getting intentionally angry to heal himself.

I have done so from time to time myself, although I'm not into Primal Scream or anything like it.

However, expressing that anger at the Ravesis does nothing to help heal any of us or to help those still in the school, or to help the Ravesis themselves, who are obviously looking for healing by posting here.

I applaud any former members, child or adult, who join and seek to find reconciliation and healing for themselves and to offer apology to those they hurt as a result of being manipulated by the school.

I have posted about my mother here. While she was not a child in the school, in many ways, she was harmed even more than I was, and I would welcome it if she was to post here. She isn't, and I don't think she will, as she is seeking her own ways of healing. Which is fine for her. But if she were to, I would be appauled if she received the type of treatment that Shout has given Celia.

CeliaR
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:05 am

Postby CeliaR » Wed May 10, 2006 9:26 am

Post deleted
Last edited by CeliaR on Wed May 17, 2006 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

AntonR
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Postby AntonR » Sat May 13, 2006 4:35 pm

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sat May 13, 2006 5:14 pm

Anton - Nice post. Although I'm afraid you are wasting your time.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sat May 13, 2006 6:19 pm

AntonR wrote:I can read the Qur?an in arabic and it irritates me when people embellish for there own mischievous use statements that are wrong. Islam does not condone slavery and in fact forbids it.

Anton,

I agree wih much of what you say in your post and I'm not here to defend Ross Nolan, but are you sure that "Islam does not condone slavery and in fact forbids it"? I don't know Arabic but I do own three translations of the Qur'an and, as far as I can tell, slavery is not forbidden by Islam. Or am I missing something?

AntonR
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Postby AntonR » Sun May 14, 2006 4:04 am

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sun May 14, 2006 9:40 am

Anton,

Once again, I agree with much of what you say.

I don't want to appear pedantic but I still can't accept your point that slavery is 'haram' in Islam. For example, as far as I can see, Sura 24, verse 33 (which you refer to) is not a commandment to liberate slaves or a statement that slavery is forbidden. It provides for a discretionary release of certain slaves ("if you know any good in them").

I agree that the Qur'an does not see slaves as sub-human and that they are afforded certain rights but they still seem to have fewer rights than others. For example, the Qur'an allows men to have sex with married women if they have been captured and enslaved (Surah 4, verse 24).

Surely, if Islam forbade slavery, the Qur'an would make this clear rather than legislating for slavery.

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

how many slaves can dance on a pinhead?

Postby ross nolan » Sun May 14, 2006 5:21 pm

Anton et al,

Perhaps you are being deliberately disingenuous in dragging in the minutae of the Hindu/Islamic definitions of 'good' and 'bad' slavery, and referring to your ,no doubt, extensive and impressive theoretical study of the various 'sacred' Hindu texts,( that anyway clearly permit of a wide range of "expert"interpretation ;-they always do, regardless of the particular brand of religion -- how else could you guarantee the future bloodbaths between nearly indistinguishable schisms such as the present Sunni vs Shi'ite daily "holy"carnage by car bomb, manual decapitation, suicide bomber, child 'jihadi' Etc )

-- the REAL issue is whether Shouts' reaction, to your ongoing comments about the teaching that he suffered from, is, or is not, a reasonable one.

As you know, Shout is presently "gagged", rightly or wrongly, so this discussion is being conducted in his absence -- he may totally disagree with my take on the matter but I perceive a similar disturbing undertone about your views of tacit 'approval' of the SES 'philosophy' in general and some of your most recent postings extoling the admiration for similar or identical Eastern religious beliefs and practises (as taught by the SES/SOP - if only 'less than perfectly' in the "early"Australian branch )

Incidentally,I just sat through an ABC documentary on dervishes in Iran (by an Iranian woman journalist ) -- you refer to your having witnessed this sort of thing -- sorry if I cannot perceive the intellectual value in such out of control induced "epileptic-like" states (the voiceover to the doco " Mystic Iran - the unseen world" on Compass 14/5/06 -- stated that ,Quote, "Western science seeks to understand the universe by study of the external world ....... Eastern religion seeks understanding by looking to the internal ")

The inference that "Western" equals "materialistic, simple, blinkered, etc'
whilst Eastern equals "deep,meaningful,wise, learned etc" is scarcely hidden but the reality is of watching these people living in mud huts and spending inordinate amounts of their time with their heads in a book chanting out medieval verbiage and congregating for long periods every day to go through ritualized supplication (in the only reasonably well built building in the town.) when they might have raised themselves out of poverty( and ignorance too) by a little of their attention being applied to their earthly existences.

("Supplication" is begging God not to inflict his will upon them in the form of disease and starvation, natural disaster etc for which the stupid craven westerners have spent their time in scientific understanding of the reasons for disease and it's treatment, the provision of adequate food by scientific agriculture and preservation and real disaster relief technology plus a bit of steel reinforcement and design of dwelling construction so that your mud hut doesn't crush you in the next earthquake.)

If God helps those who help themselves then it seems to be better to be a bit less 'god fearing' and devout (ie Western) -- if he doesn't ,then, it still seems to be somewhat better to actually do things that make a difference to the quality of life (and real understanding of the universe)

Explaining why anyone heir to the benefits of the Western civilization would pursue the most primitive and demonstrably backward belief systems is the gist of my open invitation to you ,Anton.

If you can 'know them by their fruits' then study the outcomes of Hindu and Islam on the quality of life of their followers ( essentially unchanged from early medieval levels in theistic societies )

One image in "Mystic Iran" of a young female dervish throwing her head around in convulsive ,writhing, loss of control(amongst adult 'worshippers') looks a lot like facilitating child abuse to me - certainly not impressive or convincing of the merits of "meditation/trance' or Islam .

What Shout is talking about, that he clearly finds revolting, is the matter of facilitation of CHILD ABUSE as part of the SES 'teachings' or at least as an outcome -- that IS a subject to get' real' about (even justifiable anger ) in my estimation .

If deliberate mind control of children to induce states of 'trancendence' or straight brain washing is part of 'religious' practice then what I see as appalling damage you may see as evidence for "enlightenment" -- at present your position is somewhat ambiguous aside from the malpractice in technique during the Mavro 'regime'.

Esoteric disagreements about how exactly you go about Hindu child abuse are of no interest to me, per se -- I am( instinctively) revolted by slave trading as well and don't need to get into fine deliniations about the 'definition' of slave in the Koran or the precise 'best' way to own slaves, how to carry out the imposition of meditation or any other religious dogma, in the same vein.

The deterioration of such religious "arguments" inexorably leads into heated assertions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin . They can be and have been 'settled' by resort to swords (kill the heretic) or be seen from afar as simply ridiculous ( ie literally "worthy of ridicule" -- If Shout uses ridicule in trying to show you that your whole approach is based on falsity then I think that it is legitimate.

It IS a justifiable conclusion from your own earlier writing and the account in Secret Cult that you do justify the Vedic practices as leading to factual understanding? (you credit Shout with knowing "nothing" about you which is simply not true -- your ideas are conveyed by your writing and it is your ideas ,or those adopted from the SES, that he responds to as do I )

Are Ganesha,Shiva and Kali that you worship REAL entities? If All religions are acceptable to you and you will worship them all (even though mutually exclusive and ultimately contradictory) what is the sincerity of your "belief" and 'worship'?

You CAN take up the invitation to justify the continued adherence to the basic teachings if you want -- If only Mavro was a 'nice guy' and had toned it down a bit I get the feeling that everything thereafter would have been quite OK . Is this basically right as a description of your position?

This seems to be the obvious root of Shout's reaction to your 'philosophy' and his instinctive (and well articulated) revulsion to the same dogma. (keep in mind that Shout does not know you personally, neither do I, so his crticism can only be of your statements and therefore not personal -- neither he nor I would recognize you if we passed in the street ) Oh, also 'slander' is spoken and 'libel' is written just for the record .

How do you define the all important "Truth" that these religions and the SES version purport to reveal -- as distinct from non religious , scientific or demonstrable opposing facts?

The word "Kafir" IS popularly presumed to mean 'negro' -- the South African shorthand for blacks is most definitely the well known "Keffer" pronunciation (think of Hardy Kruger .. in various movies if you have not known any Rhodesians or Sth Africans ..)

Your defence of a religion somehow divorced from it's practitioners is classical cult practice -- the Jehovah Witnesses use exactly the same defence -- only 'true' Christians can be assesed but every actual member has 'fallen short' and is not to be used to evaluate the 'pure' religion (Jehovah Witnesses have a huge child sexual and other abuse problem now coming to light , also the Catholic church etc -- those nasty beheadings in the name of Allah are nothing to do with Islam, "so called Muslims do participate in slavery", etc etc )

Winston Churchill ,I think, coined the expression "jaw jaw not war war"
-- simply it is better to talk about something to avoid real damage; also to end a 'conversation' with 'but you wouldn't understand'.. about some strange Hindu belief for example, as you have, both insults the other party and is arrogant. (like your intentionally facetious comparison between "elephants,mammals and humans" -- the exact same "logic" is described in the "philosophy today" website description of the SES tutor who says "Look, this is logic, all coaches are long, all trains are long, therefore all trains are coaches" -- what a perversion of logic but very revealing that you would resort to this exact 'analogy' )

You,Anton do not KNOW what it is like to have YOUR childhood ACTUALLY blighted by a weird coercive religion imposed on you -- Shout DOES -- respect that.

You describe Thomas Jeffersons statement about all men being created equal as "infamous' -- it may have been Thomas Paine's, but anyway is in the preamble to the US constitution and the reality was that the English had imported slaves that eventually were freed by the civil war at great loss of life -- the hypocrisy of holding slaves by Christians or Muslims shows the implicit nature of using religion as a 'justification' for doing wrong (' do it in the name of God') -- old testament slavery was OK .

Likewise, you talk about "slaves not being sub human, they have rights the same as everyone else "

WRONG Anton, quite simply (and also arrogantly insensitive ,at best slaves might have a few 'rights' that someone else permits them, which makes them privileges anyway, and then only the 'same' as other slaves NOT' like everyone else' (non slaves) -- the relationship child/teacher or guru/devotee or tutor/pupil are all unequal too.

A slave has no FREEDOM at all (in the given historical context of the Arab facilitated slave trade to the English colonies ) which is the most basic of all rights.

WHEN you have had your freedom taken from you -- for example if you have been imprisoned - then you MIGHT understand and not be quite so smug . When you are told to strip off, bend over and pull your buttcheeks apart so someone can look up your arse and then get locked into a prison cell regardless of whatever else you might want to do you will get a small idea of the actual experience of removal of freedom,- as I actually have .
A slave has done nothing to deserve such denial of freedom (as have many other prisoners from Jesus Christ to Nelson Mandela)

It is the imposition of someone else's will upon you against your own will and an unjust control over your life that characterizes both slavery, imprisonment and cult control over children

-- If Shout objects violently to your having been part of the administering of such unjust and damaging treatment upon other children (even your own ) but you falling short of disowning or repudiating the actual practice now, then I think it is somewhat like the perpetrators of the same conduct towards children in the UK at the St James schools being expected to make a full apology and realization of the wrong they had done.

If an enquiry into the conduct of the SOP in Australia was instituted you certainly could be called to account for the activities of the early school and any responsibility would be forgiveable only in the context (as with the UK) of a Repentance and a sincere admission and realization of the wrong that had been done. (basis for reconcilliation and the 'truth and reconcilliation ' process in Sth Africa )

Forgiveness without repentance is hardly 'closure' or sincere -- the apparent lack of repudiation of the SES techniques applied to the children,at least, is fundamentally incompatible with your apparent expectation for Shout to absolve you of any blame. You were the SES/SOP at that time and had control plus culpability .

Merely having a disagreement with the style of application of the basic SES doctrines as a reason for leaving the cult would not qualify, to me , as a valid basis to 'line up' with the child victims of the cult who have really fundamental objections to the whole belief system and self justification that was used to impose it on them without choice.

If there is no more significant repudiation of the whole substance (or lack of it) of SES dogma than just a degree of zealousness or a matter of personality it would clearly seperate you and Shout as representing the imposer and the victim not unlike the differing views of the slave and his 'owner' used in the discussion.

If there is more to it than just that then maybe you Anton have been wronged or misunderstood but it will need a better clarification of what you reject in the SES to make that determination. I am still unsure .
Skeptic

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sun May 14, 2006 5:30 pm

OoooooOOooooo. I am working very hard to keep my mouth shut here. But I have to point out a few things.

1. We are talking about ISLAM, not Hinduism. Two very different religions from different parts of the world and originating in very different eras.

2. This is a General discussion on SES, not on Advaita or Hinduism, which any of us are free to believe in or not. That is not up for discussion or contempt or ridicult or debate. As many have pointed out, the SES version of Advaita is a very skewed and doctored version. Just as there are skewed and doctored versions of religions all over the world that don't represent the way it should be or the way most people believe in it. So Anton, you are free to believe in whatever you want to. That doesn't make you a bad person, or a stupid one.

CeliaR
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:05 am

Postby CeliaR » Sun May 14, 2006 10:53 pm

Post deleted
Last edited by CeliaR on Wed May 17, 2006 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest