|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RESPONDENT (to No. 18): This was the offending post: [snip post]. The previous post before this one, which was the outcome of several before it, is here. [snip link]. In this post (I wouldn’t waste your time going thru it) there are various points brought up. (...) He conveniently ignored the other 1000 or 2000 words in that post. (...) To sum up ... he conveniently ignored several points or topics. RICHARD: Here is each and every one of your replies you say I ‘conveniently’ ignored in that post (I have numbered them for convenience):
If you could indicate which of your 22 replies are the ‘several points or topics’ that are worthy of being addressed – such that they not being responded to (apparently) makes me pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic in your eyes – I will most certainly attend to them.
RESPONDENT (to No. 18): This was the offending post: [snip post]. The previous post before this one, which was the outcome of several before it, is here. [snip link]. In this post (I wouldn’t waste your time going thru it) there are various points brought up. (...) He conveniently ignored the other 1000 or 2000 words in that post. (...) To sum up ... he conveniently ignored several points or topics. RICHARD: Here is each and every one of your replies you say I ‘conveniently’ ignored in that post (I have numbered them for convenience): [snip the replies for reasons of space]. If you could indicate which of your 22 replies are the ‘several points or topics’ that are worthy of being addressed – such that they not being responded to (apparently) makes me pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic in your eyes – I will most certainly attend to them. RESPONDENT: Since you asked ... why don’t you just attend to number 20. RICHARD: I see ... out of 22 replies (wherein you say there are ‘several points or topics’ you further say I ‘conveniently’ ignored) what you chose, to substantiate your assertion that I am pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic, is your reply to my response to your ‘by the way’ postscript – it was appended after my signature line in your earlier e-mail – which, as such, has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Vis.:
Apart from having no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion (not that such digressions/diversions are not a feature of more than a few of your e-mails of course) there is nothing in that passage for me to respond to ... you tell me, in effect, that (a) I am not to refer to altruism any more ... because (b) I am selfish ... therefore (c) any such reference is pretentious turgidity ... because (d) I am not promulgating actualism via corporation-owned media (such as television, newspapers, magazines, journals, and so on) but via the independent internet instead ... and that (e) I am only theorising/philosophising (albeit good, decent theory/philosophy) anyway. As you are convinced you know far more about me than I do – and prior experience has shown that any response on my part will more than likely be met with some variation of your ‘you are being defensive’/‘this is nit-picking’/‘yet more verbosity’ come-backs – I will only make one observation ... to wit: the latter half of your reply No. 6 (I only responded to the first half in what you call ‘the offending post’ at the top of this page) is an invalid assumption. Under your logic no such event can be known definitively. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally (aka ‘by the way’), I do not drink ‘decaf mocha java latte no sugar’ as I drink decaffeinated espresso with cream and sugar – or decaffeinated cappuccino (also sweetened) when at a café – and, as I prefer coffee to taste like coffee and not chocolate, not any of the mocha varieties.
RICHARD: ... out of 22 replies (wherein you say there are ‘several points or topics’ you further say I ‘conveniently’ ignored) what you chose, to substantiate your assertion that I am pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic, is your reply to my response to your ‘by the way’ postscript – it was appended after my signature line in your earlier e-mail – which, as such, has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Vis.: (snip quote). Apart from having no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion (not that such digressions/diversions are not a feature of more than a few of your e-mails of course) there is nothing in that passage for me to respond to ... you tell me, in effect, that (a) I am not to refer to altruism any more ... because (b) I am selfish ... therefore (c) any such reference is pretentious turgidity ... because (d) I am not promulgating actualism via corporation-owned media (such as television, newspapers, magazines, journals, and so on) but via the independent internet instead ... and that (e) I am only theorising/philosophising (albeit good, decent theory/philosophy) anyway. RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘If you could indicate which of your 22 replies are the ‘several points or topics’ that are worthy of being addressed – such that they not being responded to (apparently) makes me pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic in your eyes – I will most certainly attend to them’. [endquote]. You said you would attend to ‘them’. RICHARD: Aye, and that is precisely what I did with the one reply you chose, to substantiate your assertion that I am pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic, out of 22 replies wherein you say there are ‘several points or topics’ you further say I ‘conveniently’ ignored. RESPONDENT: You didn’t even attend to the one I requested. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: Is that what ‘most certainly’ means to you? RICHARD: I did indeed ‘most certainly’ attend to it ... I pointed out that (1) your reply to my response to your ‘by the way’ postscript (it was appended after my signature line in your earlier e-mail) had nothing to do with the topic under discussion (that it was a digression/diversion which had no relevance whatsoever) ... and (2) that there was nothing in that passage for me to respond to (as it was comprised entirely of you telling me (a) what I was not to do and (b) what I was and (c) what my words were and (d) why a, b, and c were so and (e) what I was doing anyway ... and (3) that as you are convinced you know far more about me than I do – and prior experience has shown that any response on my part will more than likely be met with some variation of your ‘you are being defensive’/’this is nit-picking’/’yet more verbosity’ come-backs – I would only make one observation (so as to bring the discussion back to the topic at hand). If that is not ‘most certainly’ attending to the one reply you chose, to substantiate your assertion that I am pathetic/just pathetic/extremely pathetic, out of 22 replies wherein you say there are ‘several points or topics’ you further say I ‘conveniently’ ignored I would like to know what is. RESPONDENT: That’s ok ... you certainly don’t have to answer .... but you shouldn’t make promises you can’t keep. RICHARD: Not only did I keep to what I said I would do I even added in a bonus explanation (as to why the internet is my chosen means of promulgating actualism) but if you cannot see points (1), (2), and (3) I guess the import of that passed you by as well ... to wit: corporation-owned media (such as television, newspapers, magazines, journals, and so on) are not interested in actualism. It has already been tried (6 years ago). * RICHARD: As you are convinced you know far more about me than I do ... RESPONDENT: No you are being (not pathetic) just silly when you say I know far more about you than you do. RICHARD: How so? Can you not read your own words (further above)? Can you not see that the passage in question is entirely comprised of *you* telling *me* what I am/what I am not and what I am doing/not doing (and so on and so on)? Can you not see it even when it is spelled-out (as in a, b, c, d, and e)? * RICHARD: ... and as prior experience has shown that any response on my part will more than likely be met with some variation of your ‘you are being defensive’/’this is nit-picking’/’yet more verbosity’ come-backs I will only make one observation ... to wit: the latter half of your reply No. 6 (I only responded to the first half in what you call ‘the offending post’ at the top of this page) is an invalid assumption. Under your logic no such event can be known definitively. RESPONDENT: That is what I am saying. RICHARD: Not in reply No. 6 you ain’t ... you state definitively it is not me. Vis.:
And this is not the first time you have made such an invalid assumption ... if you have not a clue you have not a clue, period. RESPONDENT: You say otherwise. RICHARD: Aye, I have made it perfectly clear how I know that no person, living or dead, prior to 1992 has ever gone beyond enlightenment so as to enable an actual freedom from the human condition ... just as I have made it perfectly clear that I am not in the business of proving it either (but that I am simply sharing my experience with my fellow human beings for them to do with it what they will). Why you (and some others) go on and on about it despite such clarity in communication has got me beat. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, never the twain shall meet. RICHARD: Not in the real-world ... it is only in this actual world, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), that it is patently obvious that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history. Of course you take no notice of anybody else confirming what I have to report ... you dismiss them as being disciples/followers/whatever. RESPONDENT: Your reasoning why you were the first and one and only as yet ... doesn’t seem either scientific or the least bit convincing. RICHARD: Hmm ... so says someone who cannot even see what they are doing with what is being shared with them (as in the passage further above for instance) by their fellow human beings ... even though several people have pointed out that your modus operandi leaves a lot to be desired. Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RICHARD: Incidentally (aka ‘by the way’), I do not drink ‘decaf mocha java latte no sugar’ as I drink decaffeinated espresso with cream and sugar – or decaffeinated cappuccino (also sweetened) when at a café – and, as I prefer coffee to taste like coffee and not chocolate, not any of the mocha varieties. RESPONDENT: Now this is interesting! No I am not kidding. RICHARD: I see it has now got to the stage you have to explain that you are ‘not kidding’ when you want to be sincere/ genuine/ honest ... somehow I am reminded of that ‘boy who cried wolf’ kindergarten tale.
RICHARD: ... the latter half of your reply No. 6 (I only responded to the first half in what you call ‘the offending post’ at the top of this page) is an invalid assumption. Under your logic no such event can be known definitively. RESPONDENT: That is what I am saying. RICHARD: Not in reply No. 6 you ain’t ... you state definitively it is not me. Vis.: 6. [Respondent]: ‘I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first, but brother, *it wasn’t you* ...’. [emphasis added]. And this is not the first time you have made such an invalid assumption ... if you have not a clue you have not a clue, period. RESPONDENT: Must I absolutely spell it out? Ok, here goes ... I have no clue WHO was first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RICHARD: ... clarity in communication is vital when writing about something entirely new in human history. RESPONDENT: You see Richard ... there you go again! You just can not help your-SELF with this ‘entirely new in human history’ crapola. There is nothing new here, just the same old game of attempted fame dividing you and everyone else. Its a trick the self plays. Don’t you know that by now? Did your former identity have any illusions of grandeur perhaps? RICHARD: Thank you for informing me that ‘the self’ plays the divisive trick of attempted fame – and the same old game at that – except that you need not have done so as I do indeed already know that. As for your query about the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago: the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) had a brief flirtation with ‘illusions of grandeur’ whilst a practising artist in the late 70’s until ‘he’ read an interview with Mr. John Lennon who, to put it as briefly as possible, reported that there was nothing ‘at the top’ and that fame had no intrinsic worth; the soul-self (aka ‘the feeler’), however, entertained no such illusion ... ‘twas the full-blown delusion, the delusion of grandeur known as spiritual enlightenment, which attracted ‘him’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) for eleven years until ‘he’ finally had to acknowledge that peace-on-earth was nowhere to be found in spiritual liberation and thus altruistically ‘self’-immolated in toto for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. In regards to your ‘there is nothing new here’ comment: as you do not provide referenced quotes where somebody – anybody – prior to 1992 reports/describes what I have to report/describe I will pass without further comment. * RICHARD: ... that section [the ‘Anti-Peace Hall of Fame’ section of The Actual Freedom Trust web site] was created at the express suggestion of a spiritualist writing to this mailing list in October last year: [snip quote and URL]. The naming of it came from a response to another spiritualist writing to this mailing list 20 days later: [snip quote and URL]. RESPONDENT: I believe that I am that ‘spiritualist’ you are referring to ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no need to believe it ... the name you use on this mailing list is printed in large letters at the URL the quote came from. RESPONDENT: Gee and I thought I was a materialist ... hmmm??? So I am a spiritualist after all? That’s good to know since I was having a bit of a crisis in identifying me and my belief system. I am certainly glad you have so altruistically cleared that up for me. All I can say is ... PHEW !!! That’s a load off my mind. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last. Incidentally, I am not altruistic It is all so simple here in this actual world.
RICHARD: ... the name you use on this mailing list is printed in large letters at the URL the quote came from. RESPONDENT: If I may interject, I thought you only have a respondent number listed and not one’s name. RICHARD: Here is the passage you responded to:
Hence my observation that the name you use on this mailing list is indubitably printed in large letters at the URL the quote came from. * RICHARD: ... you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last. RESPONDENT: ... what does that have to do with you labelling me a spiritualist? RICHARD: Mainly because you will not ... and label yourself a materialist in the meanwhile. RESPONDENT: I am an avowed materialist ... RICHARD: So are some other people who also like Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and/or what he has to say There is nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined, eh?
RESPONDENT No 37: Also, specifically why do you say that No 53 is ‘spiritual?’ RICHARD: Mainly because he will not ... the most recent ‘advaita shuffle’ being but the latest demonstration. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: So therefore, one is spiritual if they don’t delineate, classify, divide, label, etc.. each person/any person/every person as spiritual or non-spiritual. RICHARD: No, that is not what I said. RESPONDENT: Like I said before, suit yourself, classify away to your hearts content. RICHARD: I already was ... but I thank you for your post-factum endorsement of me doing so anyway.
RICHARD: There is nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined, eh? RESPONDENT: If the issue is important, I suppose that would be correct. RICHARD: As you considered it important enough to write and inform me, after I had written en passant to another that you were a spiritualist, that you label yourself a materialist – despite both the style and content of, not only your 360+ e-mails to this mailing list, but your 690+ e-mails to the Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti forum you write to under a different name than the one you write under here – it would appear that the issue is more than merely a minor one. Howsoever, if it is indeed but the incidental issue of correcting my misapprehension then that is, of course, the end of the matter.
RICHARD: There is nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined, eh? RESPONDENT: If the issue is important, I suppose that would be correct. RICHARD: As you considered it important enough to write and inform me, after I had written en passant to another that you were a spiritualist, that you label yourself a materialist – despite both the style and content of, not only your 360+ e-mails to this mailing list, but your 690+ e-mails to the Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti forum you write to under a different name than the one you write under here – it would appear that the issue is more than merely a minor one. RESPONDENT: (...) I still don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about but never you mind. But lets assume, that because of A, B & C, that one can logically arrive at the premise that I am a spiritualist or spiritual in nature; what then? RICHARD: Then the issue is out in the open so that it can be examined. RESPONDENT: What is the point of defining me? RICHARD: So that the issue can be out in the open and thus examinable. RESPONDENT: Where to from there? RICHARD: To the examination, of course. RESPONDENT: What good is this label you are sticking on me ...? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: What are you trying to show? RICHARD: To show that an unexamined labelling – in this instance [quote] ‘I am an avowed materialist’ [endquote] which is demonstrably at odds with both the style and content of, not only your 360+ e-mails to this mailing list, but your 690+ e-mails to the Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti forum you write to under a different name than the one you write under here – ultimately fools nobody but yourself. RESPONDENT: And spell it out if you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Clarity in Communication. RICHARD: Sure ... as all of my cards are out on the table, face up, for everyone to see on The Actual Freedom Trust web site I have been endeavouring to get you to show your hand ever since you first wrote to this mailing list. For example:
That exchange came just after you had asked whether Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti had said something first (about ‘genetically-encoded’) or me and, as nobody comes to this mailing list a clean-slate, it was becoming more and more apparent that I was having a proxy conversation with him and not you. As I have remarked before ... your cynicism is too poseur-like to come naturally.
RESPONDENT: ... lets assume, that because of A, B & C, that one can logically arrive at the premise that I am a spiritualist or spiritual in nature; what then? RICHARD: Then the issue is out in the open so that it can be examined. RESPONDENT: What is the point of defining me? RICHARD: So that the issue can be out in the open and thus examinable. RESPONDENT: Where to from there? RICHARD: To the examination, of course. RESPONDENT: What good is this label you are sticking on me ...? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: What good (as in ‘benefit’) does an examination bring? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that only an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: Why would I waste my time with any of your critiques of me? RICHARD: The topic under discussion is the examining of an out-in-the-open issue ... not the critiquing of it. Vis.:
I am simply going with what you provisionally agreed with (as in your ‘I suppose that would be correct’ phrasing) ... nowhere did I say anything of the kind you are now making out I said. This is what the word ‘examination’ means to me:
Furthermore, as this entire exchange is provisional as well (as in your ‘let’s assume’ phrasing) I am well aware that it might be no more than an intellectual exercise for you – if that – or, even more likely, an opportunity for you to try in vain to score more of the cheap points you seem to favour in lieu of a sensible discussion about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. Has it not dawned upon you by now that none of what you have had to say about an actual freedom from the human condition has been even worth the time and bandwidth you use to compose and send it ... not one word of it? You do not even know what it is you are being cynical about.
RESPONDENT No. 27: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’? RICHARD: The 521,697 words at the following URL: http://www.well.com/user/jct/index.html RESPONDENT No. 27: Yes, I have read many of those words – yet am still not convinced that UG is clearly ‘spiritual’. He certainly does have affinities with ‘spiritual’ teachings – non-duality, the ‘search’ is the problem, ‘thought’ is your enemy, etc. Yet it is not clear at all that he believes in an individual soul or universal soul in any sense whatsoever. So – on the one hand he definitely has affinities with some teachings of ‘spiritualists’ – yet it isn’t clear there is any ‘spirit’ in or behind it all. RICHARD: Are you familiar with the term ‘Sahaja Samadhi
RESPONDENT: And that little paragraph defines him as spiritual? RICHARD: I did preface it with ‘are you familiar with the term ‘Sahaja Samadhi’’ ... for those who are then Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s report/description speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: You’ll have to explain that one. RICHARD: To an eastern ear the term ‘sahaja samadhi’ conveys something different from what the translation ‘natural state’ can convey to the western ear (which can create the impression that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual) as what is conveyed is deeply embedded in the spiritual heritage of India. In other words, as no materialist in India would ever say they have come into a state of sahaja samadhi (just as no materialist in the west would say ‘I am God’) it is implicit in such a statement that the stater is spiritual to the hilt. To not put too fine a point on it: sahaja samadhi is generally held to be superior to nirvikalpa samadhi.
CO-RESPONDENT: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’? RICHARD: Are you familiar with the term ‘Sahaja Samadhi’ (in Sanskrit ‘together-born’ and ‘placed-together’)
which is used to designate the natural state RESPONDENT: And that little paragraph defines him as spiritual? RICHARD: I did preface it with ‘are you familiar with the term ‘Sahaja Samadhi’’ ... for those who are then Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s report/ description speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: You’ll have to explain that one. RICHARD: To an eastern ear the term ‘sahaja samadhi’ conveys something different from what the translation ‘natural state’ can convey to the western ear (which can create the impression that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual) as what is conveyed is deeply embedded in the spiritual heritage of India. In other words, as no materialist in India would ever say they have come into a state of sahaja samadhi (just as no materialist in the west would say ‘I am God’) it is implicit in such a statement that the stater is spiritual to the hilt. To not put too fine a point on it: sahaja samadhi is generally held to be superior to nirvikalpa samadhi. RESPONDENT: So because he uses certain words and phrases that are part of his culture, like meditation, sahaja samadhi, that makes him spiritual? RICHARD: I presume you are referring to this section of the (now snipped) passage:
And this section:
As no materialist in India would ever say they are always in a state of meditation (just as no materialist in the west would ever say they are always in a state of grace) and, as no materialist in India would ever say they have come into the state of sahaja samadhi (just as no materialist in the west would ever say ‘I am God’), it is implicit in such statements that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is spiritual to the hilt. RESPONDENT: Perhaps he is speaking with someone who understands the meaning of these words ... RICHARD: The book which the quote came from does not specify whether the person or persons he is speaking with understands the meaning of those words or not. RESPONDENT: You are just jumping into the middle of some conversation ... RICHARD: I read the entire transcript – from beginning to end – and did not gain the impression the editor was only publishing the middle of some conversation. RESPONDENT: ... taking it out of context ... RICHARD: What context would that be, then? RESPONDENT: ... editing it for your own purposes ... RICHARD: I copy-pasted it as-is ... I neither added nor deleted a single word. RESPONDENT: ... and extracting your point of view that he is spiritual. RICHARD: I did no such thing ... all I did was preface the passage with the Sanskrit meaning of the
term ‘sahaja samadhi’ which is used to designate the natural state RESPONDENT: Were you there when that conversation took place? RICHARD: If physical attendance were the criteria for comprehending what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say then he would not have permitted (a) having the conversation taped ... and (b) having the transcript published. RESPONDENT: Why don’t you go face him yourself ... RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television.
RESPONDENT: ... lets assume, that because of A, B & C, that one can logically arrive at the premise that I am a spiritualist or spiritual in nature; what then? RICHARD: Then the issue is out in the open so that it can be examined. RESPONDENT: What is the point of defining me? RICHARD: So that the issue can be out in the open and thus examinable. RESPONDENT: Where to from there? RICHARD: To the examination, of course. RESPONDENT: What good is this label you are sticking on me ...? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: What good (as in ‘benefit’) does an examination bring? RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that only an examination can bring. RESPONDENT: Sorry but this is part and parcel of your method ... RICHARD: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and successfully applied ... this is the straightforward business of examining (aka inspecting) an out-in-the-open issue in order to ‘investigate its nature, condition, or qualities’ (Oxford Dictionary) and, as human history attests to the good (as in ‘benefit’) which that action of ‘searching, investigating, or inquiring’ (Oxford Dictionary) can bring about with virtually any subject, your apology (as in your ‘sorry’ phrasing) for not proceeding with what you provisionally agreed with (as in your ‘let’s assume’ phrasing) is not only ill-founded but smacks of grandstanding into the bargain as nobody can be that ignorant of such a well-established activity as the examining process indubitably is. It would appear that my observation in the previous e-mail – that this exchange might well be no more than an opportunity for you to try in vain to score more of the cheap points you seem to favour in lieu of a sensible discussion – was right on the nose. Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT: Can you comment on this, Richard? From Mystique (Mistake) of Enlightenment: Pt.1: UG. www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm [snip four paragraph quote about stigmata mysticus]. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Five) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
