tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3186073110388997065..comments2024-03-18T23:08:20.960-05:00Comments on Althouse: Did this ad destroy Elizabeth Dole?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23976013890102589252008-11-08T11:21:00.000-06:002008-11-08T11:21:00.000-06:00Rev,It's not surprising that although you had time...Rev,<BR/><BR/>It's not surprising that although you had time to make your usual snarky comment, you didn't provide any scholars that supported your wrong-headed ML theory, and didn't even provide the link to the one quote you did provide.<BR/><BR/>You have made the statement that ML was a prime cause of the Holocaust. I went to 2 libraries and randomly selected 6 books on the subject. Not one even had one page dealing with ML, yet your response was that I was arguing from ignorance. Unfortunately for you, you're the one on the ignorance side.<BR/><BR/>Take one example of a central tenet of the Bush presidency. Maybe something like the "Bush Doctrine." How likely do you think it would be if 50 years from now I pulled 6 books off a library shelf dealing with GWB's presidency, and NOT ONE book mentioned the Bush Doctrine? My guess, zero. <BR/><BR/>Though I think you're intelligent when dealing with your atheistic views in a more philosophical sense, you're sadly inadequate when trying to twist history around to your interpretation. You have made error after error is this regard, and yet you continually make put-down comments directed at me.<BR/><BR/>Pardon me, if you "assume your unsupported opinion has any value to me."Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58721138193475411252008-11-07T23:59:00.000-06:002008-11-07T23:59:00.000-06:00Trey,I was thinking of going to see Boy in the Str...Trey,<BR/><BR/>I was thinking of going to see <I>Boy in the Striped Pajamas</I>, but one reviewer said it's guaranteed to give you nightmares. I like my sleep too much for that!Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84864032857985830972008-11-07T23:33:00.000-06:002008-11-07T23:33:00.000-06:00Well, OK, Martin Luther was dead, but the Lutheran...Well, OK, Martin Luther was dead, but the Lutheran church was not. There are horrid photos of beautiful German children standing for communion in their beautiful white dresses and wonderful blonde hair in front of the usual crosses and those damn swastikas in the background.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, here is a very recent article from The American Thinker that outlines German Christian opposition to the Nazis.<BR/><BR/>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/christian_opposition_to_nazi_a.html<BR/><BR/>TreyTMinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221261635305430323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52380945570938912962008-11-07T19:11:00.000-06:002008-11-07T19:11:00.000-06:00Rev:It is not surprising to me that a person who t...Rev:<BR/><I>It is not surprising to me that a person who thinks "I can name atheists who want to destroy religion" means "atheism wants to destroy religion"</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I guess it's totally ridiculous to think that "atheism wants to destroy religion," when every atheistic dictator that has been in power has tried to destroy religion. Funny, that.Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76153306999273171072008-11-07T18:41:00.000-06:002008-11-07T18:41:00.000-06:00Rev,I do try my best to ignore your more snarky co...Rev,<BR/><BR/>I do <I>try</I> my best to ignore your more snarky <I>comments</I>, but sometimes it is very difficult.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am saying that the idea that ML played a significant role in the holocaust, is not found in mainstream historians. Yes, you might find one or two, after all, you can find scholars that support all kinds of kooky stuff.<BR/><BR/>So, I am more than willing to line up my sources, now I'm asking you to do the same for the view you're propagating. In fact, the ONE historian you did give, has not one book in any of three libraries, nor book stores in my area. I wonder why that is? <BR/><BR/>And finally, would you please provide the link for the one quote you did manage to find?Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52475287039313376932008-11-07T18:24:00.000-06:002008-11-07T18:24:00.000-06:00As I just pointed out, I checked six books directl...<I>As I just pointed out, I checked six books directly dealing with the Holocaust, and NOT ONE even had ONE page dealing with Martin Luther.</I><BR/><BR/>It is not surprising to me that a person who thinks "I can name atheists who want to destroy religion" means "atheism wants to destroy religion" would also think "none of the six books I read mentioned that theory" means "that theory has no significant historical support". The argument from ignorance is one of your favorite fallacies.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53751327229099070142008-11-07T17:57:00.000-06:002008-11-07T17:57:00.000-06:00Oops, that was NB not NP.Oops, that was NB not NP.Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85178171375074335102008-11-07T17:50:00.000-06:002008-11-07T17:50:00.000-06:00Let me clarify further. You used the examples of ...Let me clarify further. You used the examples of Martin Luther and NP to lay your claim against Christians/Christianity. These types of arguments, though common with many atheists, are not supported by mainstream historians. This is the main point I was making.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I think these types of arguments (i.e. this person reflects badly on Christianity or atheism depending on the person) are very weak, and ones I don't use myself. However, if someone wants to drag that tired old line into the debate, then turnabout is fair play. You can add up all the killings done by Christians over 2000 years, and it doesn't even come close to the amount killed by atheists in the 20th century. Again, these types of points don't add up to much, but it wasn't me that started down that path.Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83748472914343140022008-11-07T17:42:00.000-06:002008-11-07T17:42:00.000-06:00Rev,Here's what you said:He (Martin Luther) laid t...Rev,<BR/><BR/>Here's what you said:<BR/><BR/><I>He (Martin Luther) laid the framework for the Holocaust; the Nazi approach to Jewry was lifted directly from his "On the Jews and their Lies", right up to the part about killing them if you aren't able to expel them. Had it not been for Luther (and, of course, nineteen hundred years of church-sanctioned Jew hatred before and after that) we wouldn't have had a Nazi Party at all.</I><BR/><BR/><B>That's</B> what I'm objecting too. I never said, as you noted at the time, Christian Antisemitism never played a role in the Holocaust. How much or how little depends on the historian..<BR/><BR/>As I just pointed out, I checked six books directly dealing with the Holocaust, and NOT ONE even had ONE page dealing with Martin Luther. <BR/><BR/>By the way, would you please provide the link of the Friedlander quote you posted above?Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12282014835033525892008-11-07T17:21:00.000-06:002008-11-07T17:21:00.000-06:00Rev , here is hoping the jerk agnostics hang out w...<I>Rev , here is hoping the jerk agnostics hang out with someone other than you!</I><BR/><BR/>I think they mostly become Objectivists. :)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the conversation!Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-61954119647385454952008-11-07T17:02:00.000-06:002008-11-07T17:02:00.000-06:00Rev , here is hoping the jerk agnostics hang out w...Rev , here is hoping the jerk agnostics hang out with someone other than you! Maybe those criminal Christians, they deserve each other!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the conversation my friend, I always appreciate you.<BR/><BR/>TreyTMinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221261635305430323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9978610694501811182008-11-07T16:53:00.000-06:002008-11-07T16:53:00.000-06:00TMink,But I would be interested to see the differe...TMink,<BR/><BR/><I>But I would be interested to see the difference in charitable giving between the two groups. There might be a measurable distinction there.</I><BR/><BR/>My understanding is that Christians give more to charity than atheists, but also commit more crimes. So it is a bit of a wash. :)<BR/><BR/>It is hard to precisely measure these sorts of things, because there are a lot of "Christians" who aren't particularly into the actual theistic aspects of Christianity. I know a couple people who go to church because they like the social and philanthropic aspects of Christianity, but who actively disagree that belief in Christ is necessary to get into Heaven. Are these people Christians? Tricky!<BR/><BR/>Really, the only reason to be an atheist (instead of being the kind of "Christian" who doesn't really attend church or worry about spreading the "good news") is if you personally are convinced there are no gods, or find the very idea of religion to be ridiculous, or that sort of thing. If you're a nice person who doesn't especially care about theology one way or the other, you'll quite probably end up self-identifying as a Christian.<BR/><BR/>Which is a wordy way of saying that nice agnostics hang out with Christians, and jerk agnostics hang out with atheists because at least we don't require them to not be jerks. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57295996748997368302008-11-07T16:45:00.000-06:002008-11-07T16:45:00.000-06:00If true, this cuts the Luther theory to shreds. Ye...<I>If true, this cuts the Luther theory to shreds. Yes, I know different scholars claim different things, but my sense is that FRIEDLANDER is correct.</I><BR/><BR/>Donn, I knew that you thought that already. This is not new information. Neither is it new information that historians disagree over the causes of the Holocaust. The point is, you claimed that the notion that the long history of German Christian antisemitism was the root cause of the Holocaust was some lunatic theory that no serious historian believed, held only by crazy atheists like me. You were wrong.<BR/><BR/>You are entitled to believe that the Jew hatred of German Protestants wasn't ultimately to blame. You are not entitled to claim that I'm promoting a theory that is outside the mainstream of historical opinion, because I'm not.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63824227453268323712008-11-07T16:34:00.000-06:002008-11-07T16:34:00.000-06:00Not that I think Rev will come back to this thread...Not that I think Rev will come back to this thread, but for now wanted to document my search at my local library re that Luther was the cause of the holocaust.<BR/><BR/>I randomly (except for 2 books by Friedlander)selected six books off the shelves that were about the Holocaust, and not on page, note that - ZERO, had any reference to Martin Luther. I have no doubt I could have checked several more with the same result.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the books were divided on the role of Christian anti-Antisemitism, with the aforementioned Friedlander seemingly the most supportive of the notion.<BR/><BR/>I would be happy to list the books and authors if anyone wished.Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62059701994262185082008-11-07T08:31:00.000-06:002008-11-07T08:31:00.000-06:00Rev, you have hit upon the crux of the biscuit. Ch...Rev, you have hit upon the crux of the biscuit. Christians should be kinder.<BR/><BR/>But my point was made toward Sam Harris' poor and I think bigoted opinion of us. His opinion was made by his collection of hate mail, not hanging with those of us who would never write him hate mail but who would pray for him unobtrusively.<BR/><BR/>As I have no prejudice toward atheists, so I am not at all interested in engaging in put downs. But I would be interested to see the difference in charitable giving between the two groups. There might be a measurable distinction there.<BR/><BR/>We know there is one between conservatives and liberals, with conservative being MUCH more liberal in giving while the liberals conserve their money for themselves. That distinction and put down I AM comfortable making! 8)<BR/><BR/>TreyTMinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221261635305430323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49734678009153388672008-11-07T01:35:00.000-06:002008-11-07T01:35:00.000-06:00It's the guilt by association that was so popular ...It's the guilt by association that was so popular this time around. If you're going to pick someone not to be associated with, it's atheists. <A HREF="http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx" REL="nofollow">53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist</A>, even if they were an otherwise well qualified nominee of their own party.jimspicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316014985662331998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56352042908238389112008-11-07T00:34:00.000-06:002008-11-07T00:34:00.000-06:00This also rings true to me...from the National Int...This also rings true to me...from the National Interest:<BR/><BR/><I>So what is this "mystery" of the Holocaust? We have no difficulty understanding the genocides traceable to Lenin or to Stalin; <B>Adolf Hitler adapted with equally diabolical success their doctrinal contempt for the individual in the name of Utopia</B>. The Stalin-ordered genocide of the Soviet peoples, anywhere from twenty to sixty million, is no mystery. Mao Tse-tung's slaughter of--who knows?--fifty million Chinese is no more of a mystery than is communist China's genocide in Tibet. There is no mystery about the killing fields of Southeast Asia where Poi Pot's Khmer Rouge murdered one-sixth of what had been a population of seven million. There is no mystery about Turkey's genocide of Armenians in the early part of the twentieth century. Of the fifteen million Afghans alive in 1978, more than a million are dead, thanks to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan two decades ago. There is certainly no mystery of Milosevic's killing of Kosovars, final figures not in yet. Why, supposedly, will we "never understand" Hitler's Holocaust? </I>Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85738118140199589692008-11-07T00:22:00.000-06:002008-11-07T00:22:00.000-06:00Re claiming the Luther was the cause of the holoca...Re claiming the Luther was the cause of the holocaust.<BR/><BR/>Rev, I think I will have trouble finding the book you mentioned, but I will continue to look. Again, thanks for the quote, and I will look anew at this issue. <BR/><BR/>I did manage to find this review tonight on the following book:<BR/><BR/><I>Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. 1: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939. By SAUL FRIEDLANDER. New York: Harper Collins, 1997.</I><BR/><BR/>In the review by PETER KENEZ, Professor of History at the University of California at Santa Cruz, he notes the following:<BR/><BR/><I>Although Friedlander does not explicitly discuss Daniel Goldhagen's enormously influential and popular ideas put forward in his "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust," the picture we get here is very different. Friedlander takes for granted that <B>the depth of German anti-Semitism before Hitler was no different than elsewhere in Europe, and once Romanians, French, Hungarians, etc. came under German rule, they behaved no better than the Germans themselves.</B></I><BR/><BR/>If true, this cuts the Luther theory to shreds. Yes, I know different scholars claim different things, but my sense is that FRIEDLANDER is correct.<BR/><BR/>This is how the professor describes the book:<BR/><BR/><I>When completed, Friedlander's study will be the most important book on the subject since the publication of Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews in 1961. Indeed, Friedlander's work could be regarded as complementary to Hilberg's. Hilberg painstakingly described the organization of the machine of destruction, the role of various German institutions in the unfolding tragedy and imposed a scheme on further historical developments--definition, concentration, expropriation, destruction--and in these matters his work has not been superseded. But it was difficult from reading Hilberg to get a sense of the experience of actual human beings, either Germans or Jews. In these matters Friedlander is obviously superior. </I>Donnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05298949062773413795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40589872819521823122008-11-06T23:27:00.000-06:002008-11-06T23:27:00.000-06:00I mean people who understand that the basis of fol...<I>I mean people who understand that the basis of following Christ is being loving.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not really the point. Yes, Christianity promotes love. The thing is, we know it is possible to be loving, generous, selfless, and all those fluffy bunny things WITHOUT being a Christian. There are Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, etc, who feel those feelings and do those things. In other words, while we can't know for certain that YOU in particular would be a nice person if you weren't Christian, we DO know for certain that people in general can be nice without being Christian. That's what I mean when I say he thinks it is a coincidence. He thinks you'd be nice even if you were a Jew or a Buddhist or, of course, an atheist.<BR/><BR/>It is hard to reconcile the idea of Christianity being especially effective at promoting goodness with the fact that Christians don't seem all THAT much nicer than the rest of us. If Christianity is the reason Christians are as nice as they are, and they aren't particularly nicer than atheists, that would seem to imply that Christians are a bunch of jerks. Where inherent niceness is N (Na for atheists, Nc for Christians) and niceness from religion is R:<BR/><BR/>Na = Nc + R<BR/><BR/>If R is > 0, then Na > Nc, i.e. atheists are people who are inherently nicer. So either Christianity doesn't amount to much, or atheists are just naturally of better character, or <B>atheism</B> somehow makes people nicer (which seems really unlikely). The only likely way R can exceed 0, or Nc equal or exceed Na, would be for Christians to be on the whole nicer than atheists: Na < Nc+R. The empirical evidence for that proposition is elusive. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54863048668892985892008-11-06T22:49:00.000-06:002008-11-06T22:49:00.000-06:00mcg:But if you are a strong free marketer and your...mcg:<BR/><I>But if you are a strong free marketer and your record is clear on that topic, then if some communist is for some odd reason going to offer you political support, I say take it!</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, given the importance of votes to winning election, I agree.<BR/><BR/>It's political math: the failure of the politics of subtraction and division. Winning politics works through addition.<BR/><BR/>Given the animosity Republicans display towards so many segments of American society, they will continue making such mistakes for a long time.AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62143333413663399992008-11-06T22:48:00.000-06:002008-11-06T22:48:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18730008227105691222008-11-06T21:51:00.000-06:002008-11-06T21:51:00.000-06:00OK, after much soul searching (heh heh,) I can thi...OK, after much soul searching (heh heh,) I can think of a single decision tree that a theist would use and a nontheist would not.<BR/><BR/>Do I or do I not call in an exorcist! 8)<BR/><BR/>TreyTMinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221261635305430323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8105530999659169762008-11-06T21:48:00.000-06:002008-11-06T21:48:00.000-06:00Rev wrote: "In other words, he doesn't think Chris...Rev wrote: "In other words, he doesn't think Christianity is what is causing you to be a nice person;"<BR/><BR/>He is wrong. Obedience is a huge part of a serious Christian's life. Kindness is love in action, and I am comanded to love people. I really try to take that seriously. Strong beliefs are guiding, even transformative.<BR/><BR/>"he thinks that you being nice and you being Christian are coincidental."<BR/><BR/>That is why I wish he could get to know likeminded believers. I do not think he has had many relationships with people like me. That sounds egotistical, but it is not intended that way at all. I mean people who understand that the basis of following Christ is being loving. It is relationships that help people overcome their bigotry, and my experience of reading a little of Sam's work is that he is a bigot.<BR/><BR/>"But like the saying goes -- if belief in God is all that's keeping you from killing me and taking my stuff, please, please go to Church."<BR/><BR/>OK, that was funny, but you are being a bit obtuse!<BR/><BR/>"To the extent that fear of Hell or hope for Heaven serves as a carrot and a stick I think Christianity encourages good behavior more than an atheist philosophy could, but that only works inasmuch as people actually believe they're going to hell."<BR/><BR/>I am more in the hope for heaven crowd, but there is more to it than that. My God is alive, and I love Him. I am thankful and grateful for the way He helped me in court today, for the miracle of my children, for the love of my wife, for beautiful fall colors, for a million other little and big things. I understand that you translate this to "Trey's belief in a nonexistant deity is experienced as a relationship" and I can go with that. But it calls for and orders my growth in a positive and loving way. And that should be a good thing even to Mr. Harris.<BR/><BR/>"just as I'm sure there are innocent homosexuals who spent their lives in misery and torment because they were convinced they were doomed to Hell for their desires."<BR/><BR/>I know you are right in that, but I have to say that the tormented gay folks could have used some better theology! I am a sexual sinner too, I Jimmy Carter regularly. There is no distinction between that and some bath house betty in terms of sinfulness. The difference is that I am forgiven. And that is a big difference in terms of how I approach God and other people and myself.<BR/><BR/>"The 20th century provided some pretty good evidence that people who give up one religious belief system often seek out a substitute (e.g., Communism), so I'm inclined to go with the devil I know."<BR/><BR/>There you go again, the devil you know! You kill me! I appreciate what you say about modern Christianity. It is rather innocuous. And the worse for it.<BR/><BR/>Boldness in love and service would be much better. There is a movement afoot in Evangelical circles to seek to engage in more charity and sacrificial giving, and that is a kind of boldness I can get behind.<BR/><BR/>Thanks dude, I appreciate the thoughtful discourse.<BR/><BR/>TreyTMinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07221261635305430323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66547932239048858582008-11-06T21:35:00.000-06:002008-11-06T21:35:00.000-06:00the Christians may have done it "in the name of Go...<I>the Christians may have done it "in the name of God" but the atheists would have done it "without the fear of God."</I><BR/><BR/>I would argue that the Christians who carried out atrocities because they thought they were doing God's will *also* weren't experiencing fear of God. Quite the opposite; they anticipated rewards for their behavior.<BR/><BR/>The key difference, as I see it, is that a lack of fear of punishment doesn't encourage activity. The fact that I won't go to hell for killing and eating a baby doesn't make me think "well, Baby BBQ for dinner, then". Fear of punishment only discourages people from doing things they actually WANT to do. Religion encourages people to do things they *wouldn't* normally want to do, like feed the poor or massacre Jews.<BR/><BR/>It is sort of like the difference between positive and negative rights. The Constitution is a list of negative rights -- e.g., the government may not restrict your speech, but you do not have the right to have your works published and distributed in the event that you are unable to pay for it yourself. I could decide to publish your book, or not to; either way, I am neither respecting your first amendment rights nor violating them. The First Amendment doesn't even enter into the picture. Similarly, atheism is strictly about negative belief, while Christianity is entirely about positive belief. Atheism doesn't tell you to DO anything, and Christianity is entirely about what people ought to do. Christianity encourages actual action, for good or bad; atheism doesn't.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24292028593623147412008-11-06T21:13:00.000-06:002008-11-06T21:13:00.000-06:00And I think it obvious that just as belief in God ...<I>And I think it obvious that just as belief in God leads to an entire decision tree of various paths of philosophy, so does the lack of belief in God.</I><BR/><BR/>Could you give an example of a decision tree that atheists face and theists don't?<BR/><BR/>As I see it, the decision tree atheists face is a subset of the decision tree theists face. There are no uniquely "atheistic" decisions about philosophy or spirituality. Now, you might say "well, atheists have to decide what is right in the absence of directives from God", but if so then I think you're missing something: belief in the existence of gods does not imply the belief that gods are a source of morality or guidance. It is possible, though rare, to believe that gods exist without believing that the god or gods in question have any relevance to the human experience. <BR/><BR/>A secular humanist might believe that people have a natural right -- one not derived from a god -- to not be tortured. But a theist can arrive at the exact same conclusion using the exact same reasoning. When a theist can reach the exact same conclusion as an atheist using the exact same chain of reasoning, that says to me that there is nothing "atheistic" about that chain of reasoning. It is just plain old vanilla "reasoning". :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com