|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 58
Let us not forget that ‘life is too much fun to take seriously or to be serious!’ I see that you have again reverted to repeating your deliberate distortion of what Richard said by leaving out any mention of sincerity. Just to refresh your memory and that of other readers, this is the actual quote you are referring to –
Yet another example of your ‘repeat -a -lie-for-long-enough-and-it’s-sure-to-becomes-a-truth’ ploy in action. To repeat a lie is what Richard is doing by advising others to be sincere whilst he does not practice same. This is obviously your ‘personal’ truth as they say as I, and many other people I know of, do regard Richard as being sincere. Again you are adopting the tactic of not addressing the issue I was talking about – the tactic of repeating your misrepresentation/ deliberate distortion of what Richard actually said – by using the schoolyard tactic of piling on even more allegations of exactly the same ilk. To repeat a lie would be advising others to practice his method whilst he doesn’t practice his method, whilst it wasn’t even his method, whilst he shall never practice said method. And even more allegations for good measure, yet another misrepresentation/ deliberate distortion of what Richard actually said – as he has made it very plain on a number of occasions that it was the social-instinctual entity ‘Richard’ who practiced the method and as a consequence became extinct in order that the flesh and blood body Richard could be free. To repeat a lie is what Richard is doing when he boasts of having no malice, anger, feelings whilst his venomous emails display such traits. And even more allegations – this time based upon the your complete misunderstanding as to what an actual free of the human condition entails. It certainly does not mean that one becomes a pacifist as you apparently imagine – which is no doubt why you go on and on and on and on and on poking and prodding, ranting and raving, cajoling and confronting in order to get a response. And when you do get a response your game is to immediately exclaim, ‘there you go, you are being malicious’, ‘you are being mean to me’, ‘your hurting my feelings’ and so on. Whilst your crying wolf is an obvious ploy, what you don’t get in this case is that actualism has got nothing at all to do with pacifism. Pacifism is nothing other than the desperate appeal of the supposed meek and mild to the bullies of the world to not pick on them but to go pick on someone else … as well as affording them the chance to smugly claim the moral high ground in the mythical battle betwixt Good and Evil that human beings still insist in believing in. You however appear sincere, I have no idea what to make of this comment. The problem is that you also say things like –
– which leaves me with no way of knowing if you are being sincere. This is one of the side-effects of adopting a cyber-personality in order to play your ‘I’ll-just-sit-at-the-computer-and-fire-off-some-shots-at-Richard-and-his-lackeys-and-see-if-I-can-score-some-points’ game – nobody on this mailing list knows whether they are talking to you or to your cyber-player personality. [You however appear sincere,] albeit too much under the influence and spell of said hypocrite and mystico-pseudo-actualist teacher. There you go again, finger on the trigger, never let a chance go by to get in yet another weak shot. * I was simply giving you some feedback that it appears to me that your game has been running on a such a limited repetitive loop for such an extended period that you have become a parody onto yourself. Like I said before – whatever. Your statement ‘it appears to me that your game has been running on a such a limited repetitive loop for such an extended period that you have become a parody onto yourself’ ... could well apply to yourself & your mate/ partner/ whatever she is. This gambit represents the basic thrust of you’re the game you play because it involves no thinking whatsoever– take any comment that is made to you, load it up a bit, turn it round and throw it back at the other. No matter that it makes no sense at all, off goes another shot. As for your gratuitous add-on comment ‘& your mate/ partner/ whatever she is’ – you have had no trouble in explaining to me what you think she is – you last described her as being a ‘sperm receptacle’. Have you suddenly gone all coy for some reason because that was by no means an isolated slur? Your recent descriptions include –
Nothing like a few misogynist pot-shots, hey? … ‘Let’s see how she likes these ones’ hey? ‘Serves ‘em right for having an unmoderated mailing list’, hey? ‘Good sport’ hey? * But I must point out that Dick has been tirading against moi – in his ahem, malice free way, of course. It’s quite clear that you still don’t get it … despite the fact that it has been spelled out in unambiguous terms many times over on this mailing list. Besides which playing the hard-done-by victim is a pre-schoolyard ruse that I would have thought was beneath even you. Beneath ‘even’ me? Is that some sort of back-handed compliment? No. It was simply an observation of pre-schoolyard behaviour. It is quite a common ruse for children to say things like ‘it wasn’t me, it was him’ or ‘he started it’ or ‘Mum, she is being nasty to me’ and so on whenever they are caught out. The reason I said that I would have thought such a ruse was beneath you is that I presume by the fact that you are writing on this mailing list that you must be an adult. You should know by now that nothing is beneath me. This is a classic fallback position because if anyone bothers to call you at your game, or rise to your bait, you can then resort to ‘I’ve finally reduced you to grovelling down in the gutter with me … Mr. High and Mighty’. There is utter safety in having no goals in one’s life – one can never fail, nor can one ever succeed, one is free to criticize everyone and every thing, in fact one feels so superior to all those fools who are making an effort, all those fools who are trying, all those fools who are seeking. And lo and behold, along comes an unmoderated mailing list – talk about shooting sitting ducks, hey? It quite amusing that the 1st & only human ever free of the human condition engages in the non-sensical banter that the intention of this list was NOT set up for by that very same person. Even more amusing is the fact that the most vehement and voluminous critic of what he, Vineeto and I have to say, had nothing to say of substance himself and very quickly reverted to doing nothing other than sitting on the sidelines dispensing school yard jibes and taunts intermixed with a dash of nihilistic doom-sayings. * It’s quite clear that Dick thinks I ‘still don’t get it’ and since that’s his opinion, of course it is also your opinion ... whatever it is you both mean by ‘it’, I could care less. It is precisely because you care less that you don’t get it. Or to put it another way, whenever feelings prevail – and ‘care less’, or not caring, is a feeling – common sense is nowhere to be found. Whatever Petey ... repeat what you have been taught. Says he reaching for his ‘you-are-nothing-but-a-clone put-down reply’. If you consider his responses to me common sense, then no such thing exists. The ‘let’s-get-the-conversation-back-to-Dick’ ploy. Anything but talk about the topic at hand – in this case the feeling of not caring. * My accusations are hardly wild but you read into them whatever suits your agenda. You are right. Wild is too mild a word … hysterical is a more appropriate word. Now you are acting hysterical and making wild & hysterical accusations. No surprise unfortunately. I am simply making the point that your accusations against Richard were couched in universal terms – as in speaking as ‘we’ and ‘us’ so as to include everyone including me and everyone reading your post – and that they included everyday universal examples of events than either can or do happen to anyone at some stage in their lives and as such they were wild accusations, as in ill-considered, erratic. When I raised the question of whether or not these accusations were aimed at me, given that you used the example of anyone whose child had died, you replied they were not aimed at me, an admission on your part that your accusations were indeed ill-considered and erratic. They were not aimed at you Peter, even though you have had this particular experience. I don’t get your point. No need to explain unless you can’t help yourself which will most likely be the case. Okay, I won’t bother to explain. I have already made my point and discerning readers will no doubt get it that this whole accusation was nothing other than yet another of your beat ups that has backfired on you. * It is the last sentence of your accusations that tips them from being wild into being hysterical, as in farcical, in that you accuse those who are devoting their lives to doing something practical about eliminating the malice and sorrow Maybe you can do something about eliminating malice & sorrow and maybe you can’t. Why so wishy-washy, suddenly? You have made it abundantly clear, particularly when someone new comes to this list, that you are firmly convinced that nothing can be done about malice and sorrow. Vis:
If Richard is any example, then we should all just give it up. I see that you chose to ignore my hint about the use of words such as ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’. You have made it crystal clear that you are not even interested in, let alone have started to do anything about, eliminating the feelings of malice and sorrow from your life so your comment that ‘‘we’ should all just give it up’ is utter nonsense. * What makes this aspect of your accusation especially farcical is that you are on record as praising the ‘Introduction to Actual Freedom’ that I penned which is all about bringing an *actual* end to the abomination of ‘all the(se) wars, rapes, murders, injustices of man on his fellow man’. I thought you did a good job in a scholastic sense. You summarized it well. The well-worn back-handed compliment ploy. Your cohort No 65 used the very same trick recently when I wrote to him about the events in my life that woke me up to the difference between feeling I was caring and actually caring –
I believe your intent is generally for the good as opposed to Richard who says one thing and behaves another way. There may well be some hope for me yet …if only I would listen to you and follow your teachings, hey? Ah, yet another saviour trolling the net looking for souls to save from the ‘evil of the Gurus’, in this case the Evil One called Richard. * But then again you are nothing if not inconsistent in your posts to this mailing list. Your latest accusations wherein you merrily lambast Richard for not only not caring about ‘all the(se) wars, rapes, murders, injustices of man on his fellow man’ but go on to imply that he finds them to ‘be plain fun’ stands in stark contrast to your own teachings on the same subject posted only two weeks prior –
In the light of your own teachings on this list, I would now describe your accusations as not only hysterical but hypocritical as well. You may describe my ramblings in whatever way you wish. I will not be defending them. They can go into the waste bin for all I care. Take them or leave them. You are better off leaving them. Ah, the humble, ‘I have nothing to offer my readers, for nothing needs to be offered, nothing can be done, nothing needs to be done’, ... dismissal/retreat. Another bit of U.G. Krishnamurti’s teachings, or should I rather say U.G Krishnamurti’s non-teachings? I am not on record as saying my words are ‘ever fresh’ whilst speaking out of my arse at the exact same time ‘matter is not passive’. I am not on record as saying my words are ‘IT’, that my words are an exact non=contradictory, non-ambiguous description of reality/actuality, whatever you want to call it, whilst spewing malice, pettiness, venom & anger at his fellow human being whom one says they like so much. … finished off with a suitably muddled and confused mishmash of accusation, disinformation and misrepresentation masquerading as saying something of substance. * In this particular case, my accusations were not aimed at you. I see. So, when you said –
what you really meant to say was –
And now you are being just a plain moron Peter. Don’t put words in my mouth unless you get some perverse pleasure at having them spat out at you and your actual & actualist absurdity. What I am doing is explaining why your accusations, as you wrote them, were aimed so widely as to include me. I then substantiated my point by giving an example of how it would have had to be phrased for the accusation to have not been aimed at me. This is something that a moron – ‘an adult with a mental age of between about eight and twelve’ (Oxford Dictionary) –would have great difficulty in doing. As you have said, I wasn’t concerned if you were included or not. You go on & on about a ‘wide’ & wondrous path yet you would like for me not to use such ‘widely’ aimed comments. And yet I never said that at all – another case of using the let’s put some words he didn’t say in his mouth and then proceed to make comment about it. This is a ploy that is usually a precursor for setting up a straw man argument or is employed so as to spread disinformation about someone in the form of gossip. More than a few times you have managed to fool others on this list into falling for your ploys and this is one of the reasons I am using my spare time at the moment responding to your posts in such detail. What I write will be of use for others in wading their way through the bluff and bluster that spiritualists produce, posing as comments of substance. It also may encourage readers to do their own thinking on matters rather than be so readily swayed by those who do nothing else but defend the status quo. * Would you care to amend your accusation accordingly, keeping in mind that future amendments may well be necessary as others become interested in not taking their own life so seriously? No I would not care to amend a thing. You read into them as you will. Your interpretation is your problem & pleasure & not my concern either way. I see you have dug into your bag of stock-standard ploys and bought out the ‘that’s just your interpretation’ platitude with yet another – ‘that’s your problem and not my concern’ – tacked on for good measure. Your repetitive reversions to such hackneyed responses is one of the reasons I said that ‘it appears to me that your game has been running on such a limited repetitive loop for such an extended period that you have become a parody onto yourself’. Whatever Peter. Your response is the same repetitive parody loop. Ah, the stock standard ping pong response – the response you make when you have got nothing to say. * Given that you have been a contributor … That is most generous of you to refer to me as a ‘contributor’. What gives? Are you buttering me up for a future onslaught? I was simply stating a fact. One of the benefits of having an un-moderated Actual Freedom mailing list is that all aspects of the human condition are freely displayed for all to see … and as one of the staunchest defenders of the status quo the quality, style and substance of your contribution literally speaks for itself. Of course you would think this. This is how you have been brainwashed by your resident Dick. Right on cue, yet another of your If the shoe fits ... Ah, the hackneyed platitude as a ping-pong response. * … I do happen to know of an actualist whose child was acutely ill at one stage. Would you exclude her from the ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘each and every one of us’ of your accusations? Or I could ask you – did one of your children die? In other words, were you speaking from your own experience or were you merely intellectually ‘speaking for others’ by proxy when you made your accusation. In this case I am speaking from personal experience. In that case would you like to write about personal experience? As you know, I have written about my own personal experience when my young son died and I found the very act of writing about it was a great aid in being able to make sense of my feelings about it. I don’t need to clarify a thing. A fact of life is losing loved ones. But this nonsense of feeling nothing at such an event is really something else. Did what I wrote about my son’s death completely pass you by? I’ve snipped it from my reply as you didn’t bother to respond to it but I’ll refresh your memory. I wrote about the feelings I had when my son died and how, when I investigated them, I found that there is a self-indulgent aspect to the feeling of grief and not only that but also a feeling of being special that I found came with it, as in ‘no one else knows how much I am suffering’. The fact that I was able to become so clearly aware of the insidious nature of the feelings I was having meant that they soon went away. I discovered that the loss of one so close is difficult enough, but to compound this loss with the usual feelings that accompany such a loss was debilitating not only to myself but to everyone else involved as well. The reason I say everyone else is that I also became aware that I wanted others to acknowledge my suffering, I wanted others to feel gloomy along with me and yet on the other hand I resented their sympathy because it was never enough because in the end they couldn’t feel my suffering because only ‘I’ can feel what ‘I’ am feeling. The other thing that helped me to clearly see the senselessness of the feelings that are involved in the death of someone close is that the circumstances involving my own son’s death were initially somewhat unclear and consequently many people were swamped with feelings of guilt, indignation, blame, resentment, helplessness, despair and so on. Coincidently, the shock of my son’s death caused me to be in a state of calm at the time – somewhat akin to the ‘being at the centre of a cyclone’ experience that many report – and this calmness enabled me to clearly see that having these feelings only made the whole situation surrounding the fact of the loss far worse and far more complicated. Everyone was so awash with their own emotions that it was left to me to do the practical things that needed doing, to take care of those who needed taking care of and to attempt to diffuse the feelings of bitterness and recrimination that were threatening to get out of hand. Because I had felt these feelings and was aware that I was having these feelings when my son died, I came to realize that to suffer the loss of someone close is one thing but to compound the situation by having to suffer the affective feelings normally associated with such a loss does nothing but aggravate the situation. I have nothing good to say about the feeling of grief – the feeling sucks and it sucks big time. Nor do I have anything good to say about the associated feelings of sorrow and compassion (feeling sorrow for others). Contrary to popular opinion, there is no ‘good’ in sorrow - the only thing that one gets out of the feeling of sorrow is the debilitating pain and angst that comes with all affective feeling. As for ‘this nonsense of feeling nothing’ – to me, wanting to hold on to such feelings, simply because everyone else says you should, is what is nonsense. * Either way it’s irrelevant to your tit4tat tactics. What is relevant is that there is a marked difference between someone speaking intellectually about a subject and someone speaking from personal experience about a subject. Sure. If someone speaks from personal experience then they are claiming a moral high-ground. No, this bears no resemblance to what I said. The marked difference I referred to was something that became very obvious to me in my university days when I very quickly realized that I was being taught by academics who had little or no practical experience and not by hands-on practitioners in the field of building and architecture. It took me some 20 years thereafter before I managed to glean sufficient hands-on, trial and error experience in order to become proficient in my field of work – to know that what I was doing did indeed work in practice. . If someone speaks intellectually, they can be easily dismissed as not speaking from personal experience. Either way, you win. Despite your fabricated scenario, what I am saying has nothing to do with winning and losing, far from it. It is, as I have reiterated by example, simply common sense. * You have made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in playing such a game yourself but therein lays the very means of discovering how the human condition is played out in each and every feeling being, in this case ‘me’. The trick to beginning to play the game was to cease pointing the ‘torch’ of awareness on other people, turn it around and begin to focus it on my own feelings, my own actions and my own reactions. Do what you have to do Peter and do what you want to do. Why you would think everyone should take the same tact is absurd, narrow and blind. I have no illusions whatsoever that human beings will continue to pride themselves on being feeling beings long, long after I am dead and reduced to a pile of ashes that will be indistinguishable from any other piece of matter … but in the mean time, along with two friends, I will help to maintain a website and occasionally write to its associated mailing list in order to let others know that a way has now been found to be actually free of the human condition in toto … and I do mean in toto. 1st; I shouldn’t play the ‘eons-old game of human beings attempting to outdo others by claiming the moral high ground’ and then 2nd; my ‘posts will have at least a smidgeon of credibility if you speak from your own experience’. Make up your mind or: Hint#1: keep it & your Hints to yourself if want it both ways. And all this falls flat on its face for the simple reason that I did not say you ‘shouldn’t play the ‘eons-old game of human beings attempting to outdo others by claiming the moral high ground’’. * This is yet another example from your limited repertoire of tactics on this list: claim that someone has said something that they haven’t said and then rile against them for supposedly saying it. Countless conflicts are begun or sustained by people either intentionally or inadvertently using this tactic or get hoodwinked by it, whether it be intentionally or inadvertently. So you are now suggesting I should increase my repertoire of tactics in order to compete with the versatile & ready for any tactics actualists? I remember when I first started writing on mailing being taken aback and confused by the ‘debating rules’ that people engaged in. So much time was wasted and so much attention was diverted away from talking about the subject by people ducking and dodging, inventing straw man arguments and insisting on pursuing them, putting words into others mouths, side tracking the conversation, indulging in trivia, and so on, that matters of consequence was rarely discussed. The very same thing happens on this mailing list for long periods of time, yet despite the frenetic interference run by those with a vested interest in running interference occasionally someone gets to get something that will be of use to them in their lives. Good, hey. Not interested in your games. Find someone else to play by your rules if you are bored. Ah, and right on cue, you finish off with another playground cliché. As you well know, this is an umoderated mailing list, so there are no rules per se, no policemen to impose rules, which you affords you the opportunity to follow your own advice to others on this list –
Far from being bored, I have found the exchange to most fruitful as I have taken the opportunity your posts have provided to pass on my by-no-means extensive knowledge of some of the games people play in order to disguise the fact that they have nothing of substance to say – in this case with regard to the subject of feelings.
So there you go – Topic: the significant events in your life that set you caring about what is often called the ‘plight of humanity’. Manner of discussion: swapping personal stories, just as one does when one puts one’s feet up and swaps life stories with others. Over to you again … I am not Mother Theresa , Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr, Genghis Khan, George Bush Jr, ... I am not Bill Gates and donate my billions for charitable causes ... I am not in a position of political power .... I don’t have a website offering methods to kill time and instil hope for the apparently ever elusive actual freedom except for the one, by their founders who didn’t found it, who didn’t practice it but go on & on about someone or others method with an unverifiable ‘proven track record’ ... unlike the very verifiable track records of a Bill Gates for example or some sports star or military hero, businessman, school teacher, etc ... I am extremely average ... I am generally aware of the news that is available, I can see the plight of humanity/current events as it goes down ... if I do anything about the plight of humanity, as its called, it would be on a micro scale, if even that. Perhaps its because I don’t feel I can do a thing to change the ‘plight of humanity’ ... like I said, I am not a politician, social changer, I am not in any position of effecting change on a mass scale. Nothing set me off ‘caring about what is often called the plight of humanity’. I have done what I have always done. I am sorry, but I have no interesting or relevant stories to tell which proved to be significant in widening my outlook from purely self-centred to including a concern for the antagonism and despair that I saw as inherent to the human condition. I was self-centred and I remain so. You are free to use that statement against me in future discussions as I am sure you may, as well as your boss and/or your lover. Sorry Peter, my feet are up but nothing relevant is coming out. We can try something else if you’d like. No. I’ll pass on your offer as I will be helping a friend out for the next few weeks and after that I’ll be back to work. Your reply did however leave me somewhat mystified as to why you have riled against actualists for ‘not caring’ when you so freely admit to not caring yourself. The reason I say this is that you obviously care about actualism because you devote a good deal of your own time sitting at the computer passionately riling against actualists. If you don’t care about the suffering that human beings inflict upon themselves (and each other) then why do you care whether or not other people are trying to do something about bringing an end to the malice and sorrow they find in themselves? Why should this bother you so? The inquisitional zeal that you exhibit on this mailing list belies your avowed ‘care less’ attitude, does it not?
To Richard: You promise ... Richard: This flesh and blood body made no ‘promise’
anywhere at all in the above (or elsewhere for that matter) ... and, as the pure consciousness experience (PCE) provides
a practical demonstration of life sans identity in toto, no such pledge is even needed (let alone made). To Richard: What do you call these little statements taken directly from your website:
So you haven’t ‘promised’ ....you have instead ‘guaranteed’ .... well excuse me for the mis-representation. And as far as ‘within a remarkably short time’ .... how short is short? Are we talking thousands of years or within one lifetime, or 2 years, 5 years? perhaps 10 years? ??? And yet Richard did not make these statements, a fact which makes the current tack you are taking pointless. As the author of the statements, I would be more than happy to discuss the issues you raise … should you want to, that is.
To Richard: You promise ... Richard to No 58 – This flesh and blood body made no ‘promise’ anywhere at all in the above (or elsewhere for that matter) ... and, as the pure consciousness experience (PCE) provides a practical demonstration of life sans identity in toto, no such pledge is even needed (let alone made). To Richard: What do you call these little statements taken directly from your website:
To Richard: So you haven’t ‘promised’ ... you have instead ‘guaranteed’ ... well excuse me for the mis-representation. And as far as ‘within a remarkably short time’ ... how short is short? Are we talking thousands of years or within one lifetime, or 2 years, 5 years? perhaps 10 years? ??? Peter – And yet Richard did not make these statements, a fact which makes the current tack you are taking pointless. As the author of the statements, I would be more than happy to discuss the issues you raise … should you want to that is. Words like guarantee and within a remarkably short period of time are strong words. At the time I wrote these words I was talking of my own experience only, yet in the short time since then there are now a number of people who have discovered that the method to become free of malice and sorrow is devastatingly simple once one has unearthed the required ingredients necessary for it to be effective … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. And not only that but nowadays there are also a number of people who have reported tangible successes in becoming free of malice and sorrow in a remarkably short period of time … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. That you persist in maintaining a head-in-the-sand attitude to these reports only serves to illustrate your No 58-knows-best (because UG Krishnamurti says nothing-can-be-done) stance on this mailing list. Marketing and advertising terms. What a terrible thing to speak openly and enthusiastically about the discovery of a do-it-yourself method to eliminate malice and sorrow, eh? What an effrontery that I should have used such strong words at the time given that they were based on only a handful of successes at the time? How dare I be so naive as to go on to propose that the spreading of actualism will one day mean that war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, corruption, despotism and so on will be remembered as things of the past? And yet at the same time you criticize me, you are yourself Anyways, feel free to explain your usage if you feel like it, for me, you or the viewing audience. I have never needed an invitation to explain the workings and outcome of actualism, but thanks anyway(s).
Actualism is dead ... Richard can’t keep up the charade no more ... everyone go home ... t’was fun while it lasted tried, flailed ... & ultimately failed Far from dead, t’is alive and flourishing. Oh well ... NEXT !! What is ‘NEXT’ is in fact available right now … the first two DVDs in
what will be a series of DVDs entitled ‘Conversations about the Human Condition and how to become free of it’.
Footnotes: 1.)‘You have no chance of changing yourself. No chance. It is your desire to change that is the problem. And all the Richards of the world only add to this desire. There is no change. There is only what is now and what you would like to be. The two never meet’. (‘Re: Popcorns’; 15.1.2004). ‘So everyone wants to be free of the human condition? What for? You think it will solve all your problems. What’s wrong with the human condition? I say be human. Be fully and completely human. That is all you can do. Everything else is but a pipe dream put in you from self proclaimed free guru, master, gods, and regular humans. Self immolate? I say be your self. Be no one else but your self. That is all you can do. The rest is psycho babble’. (‘Richard And His Actual Freedom – Big Effin Deal!’; 20.10.2003). ‘Nothing makes a difference as far as freeing oneself
of the self. Can’t be done. And especially nothing on this website will make any difference in this regard. (...) Run
from this website and mailing list as fast as you can run. Don’t look back. Never look back. (...)’ (‘Re: Some Thoughts’; 27.12.2004). 2.) for instance: ‘for your
reading pleasure ..... or not: http://www.inner-quest.org/UG.htm’ the lonesome freak, 29.1.2005
Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
