Unorthodo_x Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 What evidence is there of any kind to believe anything else? The whole ideology that there is any afterlife is one of man's imaginations and there is no reason to give it any consideration without supporting evidence. I freely concede that it is possible but the fact that i don't have any belief in such does not make it religious. I will argue that there is evidence consciousness can exist outside of the body. For example the thousands of NDE's and OBE's experienced yearly. The Navy conducted a centrifuge g-force study and as a side affect confirmed consciousness could be "popped" out of the body repeatedly and predictably. DMT which is ubiquitous through out nature has been scientifically proven to be produced in the pineal glands of rats "the 3rd eye." DMT has also been shown to produce nearly identical out-of-body out-of-this-dimension episodes in humans with a side affect profile safer than any drug or substance I have ever came across, it has also been known to convert many proud atheist. Many buddhists who have practiced meditation their entire lives will tell you they experience a oneness with all other human beings and that we're all tiny fraction of one greater "collective consciousness." If you want to be truly educated on human consciousness you need to develop a meditation practice, experiment with DMT and/or 5-MEO DMT, and OBE's (there are many techniques to induce OBE's). Anyone who consider themselves an atheists, or is on the fence about consciousness, should absolutely experience DMT of some form....it will undoubtedly shift your perspective on life and this universe. All of these pieces together are a little hard to just ignore or dismiss. I know DMT and psychedelic experiences are very taboo but I think that's nonsense. The psychedelic experience is given to us by nature and is profound to say the least. I understand why most people would be afraid of it but I don't believe it is rational to just dismiss such an extraordinary state of consciousness because of "injected societal bias." I will also say that I concede it is possible that we do just cease to exist in any fashion when we die. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Produce peer reviewed articles confirming these assertions please, including suitable confirmations by independent researchers also published in peer reviewed journals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unorthodo_x Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 Produce peer reviewed articles confirming these assertions please, including suitable confirmations by independent researchers also published in peer reviewed journals. I might if I can find the time. My point was that there is plethora of information on this topic. You can easily find a copy of DMT-The Spirit molecule by Rick Strassman. And I'm not sure what good a scientific paper in a reviewed journal is gonna do for you when these experiences are peoples conscious perceptions, and there is no current scientific method of quantifying consciousness. I'm skeptical science could come up with a falsifiable statement regarding an individuals experience on these matters. Some things just aren't falsifiable, but that doesn't discredit the thousands if not millions of people who have reported these types of experiences. There was and interesting recent case of a Neurologist who had a stroke. His father was also a Neurologist so his post-stroke state was monitored and documented exceptionally well. The region of his brain that neuroscience says is responsible for consciousness was completely shut down during this ordeal. And at that time he had one hell of a conscious experience to say the least, so his life is now dedicated to researching what science has neglected for so long. If I'm not mistaken this was on an episode of WNYC RadioLab. So you either have to believe that the thousands of people who have reported these experiences are either lying or you believe it is just a construct of the mind. I find the latter just as interesting. The DMT experiences where part of a scientific study and were published so that should give you some basis for discussion on the topic. So what does that mean to you?.....I think it was 65 individuals who had roughly 600 experiences and they all reported extremely similar phenomena i.e. other worldly encounters with unknown "intelligent beings" as well as "soul expanding" experiences. All from a molecule produced by your very own pineal gland. I'm genuinely interested in how you would interpret that. Because regardless of the implications I would think we could both agree that is mind bogglingly interesting! I forgot to say that to be completely rational here there is no way one can know if consciousness can exist after death So I enjoy an optimistic position because it's.....optimistic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 So, to be brief and perhaps brutal, your argument is that anecdotal evidence is a sound basis for constructing a hypothesis. It is my impression that most scientists would disagree with you. I do not deny the nature of OBEs and NDEs. I question your interpretation of them when scientific analysis has provided a meaningful solution different from yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I might if I can find the time. My point was that there is plethora of information on this topic. You can easily find a copy of DMT-The Spirit molecule by Rick Strassman. And I'm not sure what good a scientific paper in a reviewed journal is gonna do for you when these experiences are peoples conscious perceptions, and there is no current scientific method of quantifying consciousness. If this is true then how can you claim the things you claimed about consciousness? I'm skeptical science could come up with a falsifiable statement regarding an individuals experience on these matters. Some things just aren't falsifiable, Then it cannot be determined to be part of reality. but that doesn't discredit the thousands if not millions of people who have reported these types of experiences. Millions of people report being abducted by aliens, numbers of people who believe something is meaningless as evidence... There was and interesting recent case of a Neurologist who had a stroke. His father was also a Neurologist so his post-stroke state was monitored and documented exceptionally well. The region of his brain that neuroscience says is responsible for consciousness was completely shut down during this ordeal. And at that time he had one hell of a conscious experience to say the least, so his life is now dedicated to researching what science has neglected for so long. If I'm not mistaken this was on an episode of WNYC RadioLab. If this was a scientifically documented report there should be more than just a "show" about it... So you either have to believe that the thousands of people who have reported these experiences are either lying I would say mistaken... or you believe it is just a construct of the mind. I find the latter just as interesting I see no reason to assume anything else... The DMT experiences where part of a scientific study and were published so that should give you some basis for discussion on the topic. So what does that mean to you?.....I think it was 65 individuals who had roughly 600 experiences and they all reported extremely similar phenomena i.e. other worldly encounters with unknown "intelligent beings" as well as "soul expanding" experiences. All from a molecule produced by your very own pineal gland. I'm genuinely interested in how you would interpret that. Because regardless of the implications I would think we could both agree that is mind bogglingly interesting! Those experiences are called hallucinations... I forgot to say that to be completely rational here there is no way one can know if consciousness can exist after death So I enjoy an optimistic position because it's.....optimistic! Optimism is meaningless but you are welcome to it... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unorthodo_x Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) If this is true then how can you claim the things you claimed about consciousness? Unorthodox's Reply: My point was there's logical basis for these beliefs. It is not merely "faith." Then it cannot be determined to be part of reality. Unorthodox's Reply: At this moment in time yes. Gravity, Electromagnetism, and both Nuclear forces where all undeterminable in the past. That doesn't take validity away from my argument. Millions of people report being abducted by aliens, numbers of people who believe something is meaningless as evidence... Unorthodox's Reply: Millions of people reporting something is meaningless as evidence? This is extremely oxymoronic and it feels quite silly. All it takes is for one individuals experience to be true, so what is the probability every single human report is false.....about 0.0000000000001% If this was a scientifically documented report there should be more than just a "show" about it... Unorthodox's Reply: I never said there was "just a show." I see no reason to assume anything else... Unorthodox's Reply: The reasoning is that the experiences have correlations. It is a universal experience regardless of an individuals differentiating factors. If it were just distortions of the mind there should be no statically significant correlations. Regardless you should have the experiences so you can see for yourself. If you truly want to have a firm grasp on matters of the mind it's absolutely essential. Those experiences are called hallucinations... Unorthodox's Reply: That doesn't mean you get to just dismiss them as meaningless. DMT is: scientifically shown to be ubiquitous in nature, ubiquitous in the human body and brain, and produced in the pineal gland. There is a purposeful biological function that DMT excites. Ignoring it would be no different than ignoring any of the other important evolutionary biological mechanism. It has a meaning, a purpose, and an evolutionary history. You can't just dismiss it. Optimism is meaningless but you are welcome to it... Unorthodox's Reply: That's one extremely depressing sentence Science has ignored this field of study for so long. There are always going to be phenomena beyond our comprehension but that doesn't mean you should stop pursuing scientific exploration of the phenomena. For some reason science shuns people studying alternative takes on consciousness. I would just like to see the scientific community stop shunning people for trying to conduct respectable research. Edited October 18, 2013 by Unorthodo_x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Science has ignored this field of study for so long. There are always going to be phenomena beyond our comprehension but that doesn't mean you should stop pursuing scientific exploration of the phenomena. For some reason science shuns people studying alternative takes on consciousness. I would just like to see the scientific community stop shunning people for trying to conduct respectable research. Please provide examples of where this has happened. To save us both time, I am not interested in anecdotes, I want well documented instances of where "the scientific community has shunned people trying to conduct respectable research." While you are doing that you could explain how the following studies were able to take place in such an atmosphere of prejudice as you suggest exists: Out of body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin The Out-of-Body Experience: Disturbed Self-Processing at the Temporo-Parietal Junction Visualizing Out-of-Body Experience in the Brain The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences These are just four examples from one page on Google Scholar, from a search for "out of body experience". Each of the articles contains several references to other research (doubtless some of them duplicated). There are over 10,000 hits in total. A search for "near death experience" generates over 16,000 hits. Granted many of these will make only passing mention of the topic (but is will be mentioned) and even if only 10% focus on it, that still means 1,600 research papers exploring some aspect of the phenomenon. So, how do you justify your claim that this research is discouraged, even shunned, when scores, possibly hundreds of researchers have been engaged in it and their findings are being published in reputable journals? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 For some reason science shuns people studying alternative takes on consciousness. I would just like to see the scientific community stop shunning people for trying to conduct respectable research. I don't think both of these sentences are addressing the same issue. It's probably the lack of rigor in methodology that makes any scientist "shun" anyone studying non-mainstream explanations. And if the research is respectable, then it probably isn't being "shunned". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unorthodo_x Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) I don't have the interest, time, or desire to dig up all the pertinent information for you. I would be will to bet my entire bank account that if you polled Neurologist in America an overwhelming percentage would say they believe consciousness comes from the physical brain. There is some very interesting research going on but it's an extremely small sliver of the spectrum. All of the papers here look at what part of the brain causes OBE's or how they can be triggered.....pretty interesting but I sure don't see any new takes which is exactly what I'm talking about. I've yet to see a finished paper examine if these peoples consciousness IS actually outside of their body. There is a current research being done on just that and I can't wait to see the end results. Like I said either interpretation is just as interesting but we should examine all possibilities. I know guys I'm totally wrong here...science loves the weird fringe topics...and scientist love to study them...and without disdain from most of the academic world. Look at the state of current psychedelic research...it's picking up pace but a far as I know there has only been ONE brain scan study done in the entire field. That's pretty abysmal. Edited October 19, 2013 by Unorthodo_x -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) I don't have the interest, time, or desire to dig up all the pertinent information for you. I would be will to bet my entire bank account that if you polled Neurologist in America an overwhelming percentage would say they believe consciousness comes from the physical brain. There is some very interesting research going on but it's an extremely small sliver of the spectrum. All of the papers here look at what part of the brain causes OBE's or how they can be triggered.....pretty interesting but I sure don't see any new takes which is exactly what I'm talking about. I've yet to see a finished paper examine if these peoples consciousness IS actually outside of their body. There is a current research being done on just that and I can't wait to see the end results. Like I said either interpretation is just as interesting but we should examine all possibilities. I know guys I'm totally wrong here...science loves the weird fringe topics...and scientist love to study them...and without disdain from most of the academic world. Look at the state of current psychedelic research...it's picking up pace but a far as I know there has only been ONE brain scan study done in the entire field. That's pretty abysmal. So, in summary, you have made an assertion that you will not provide any evidence to justify. You simply argue that we should accept your word that it is so. (For all I know your bank account is not in credit and when you lost the bet we would 'win' the obligation to bring it into balance.) You clearly stated that science has ignored this field. I clearly demonstrated that it has not. You then, rather than at least conceding that point, shifted the goalposts. I find that dishonest. In combination with your unwillingness to provide evidence to support your assertions (something required by forum rules) I see no value of continuing a discussion with you. Edited October 19, 2013 by Ophiolite 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Look at the state of current psychedelic research...it's picking up pace but a far as I know there has only been ONE brain scan study done in the entire field. That's pretty abysmal. A search on Google Scholar shows nearly 7,000 results for "psychedelic brain scan" with over 400 of those being in 2013. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unorthodo_x Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) A search on Google Scholar shows nearly 7,000 results for "psychedelic brain scan" with over 400 of those being in 2013. So go find me ONE out of the 7,000 that actually scans peoples brains....and doesn't just have the random scattered words somewhere in the literature:brain, scan, and psychedelic. Because I just looked and I can't find one....except the psilocybin study. And MDMA which is referenced in some of these is not a psychedelic it's an amphetamine. I thought I was gonna have to give you some real credit and bow down about this but If you actually look at the references none of them are actual brain scan studies. FYI: Your profile pic...the Fibonacci spiral in your pic is pretty damn awesome. I was trying to show this to my daughter the other day on a pine cone...she's a little to young though to sit still and appreciate it. So, in summary, you have made an assertion that you will not provide any evidence to justify. You simply argue that we should accept your word that it is so. (For all I know your bank account is not in credit and when you lost the bet we would 'win' the obligation to bring it into balance.) You clearly stated that science has ignored this field. I clearly demonstrated that it has not. You then, rather than at least conceding that point, shifted the goalposts. I find that dishonest. In combination with your unwillingness to provide evidence to support your assertions (something required by forum rules) I see no value of continuing a discussion with you. I never agued you should except my word at face value that is just completely false. I argued there are valid reasons for my positions. I would love to find you a piece of literature...and I will if I can find the time. If you want to be educated on the matter I just wanted you to know there is literature out there. Ignoring the field wasn't really my gripe..although I can see how it might be interpreted that way. My gripe is that science in general is extremely rigid to "out of the box" ideas. People spend there entire lives building a model/theory and when people come in challenging the classical interpretation people resist. I saw this in mechanical engineering school ALL the time. I would question professors on scientific laws and they would always tell me the same thing....it will always be that way. Which is kind of odd considering that's the true SLOW march of science. Old ideas fall away, and new ideas replace them. While some laws might hold the test of time I've always advocated that we should examine all angles. I always come back to the famous quote "scientific progress is measured in tombstones" because the academic pillars resist elemental change. And maybe I could be wrong, In reality my experience is anecdotal and not truly representative of the entire scientific landscape. I will fully concede that I could be wrong. But if I feel this way, there has to be a substantial amount of other scientific minds that feel the same. I would also like to say my main interest was just to see how Atheist interpret this: DMT is: scientifically shown to be ubiquitous in nature, ubiquitous in the human body and brain, and produced in the pineal gland. There is a purposeful biological function that DMT excites. Ignoring it would be no different than ignoring any of the other important evolutionary biological mechanism. It has a meaning, a purpose, and an evolutionary history. You can't just dismiss it. I guess I should have made a separate post. Edited October 19, 2013 by Unorthodo_x -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I would also like to say my main interest was just to see how Atheist interpret this: DMT is: scientifically shown to be ubiquitous in nature, ubiquitous in the human body and brain, and produced in the pineal gland. There is a purposeful biological function that DMT excites. Ignoring it would be no different than ignoring any of the other important evolutionary biological mechanism. It has a meaning, a purpose, and an evolutionary history. You can't just dismiss it. I guess I should have made a separate post. Lots of chemicals cause hallucinations and have similar receptors in the brain, this can be be attributed to plants producing chemicals to discourage animals from eating them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) I don't think we are both using the same definition of energy... When you die the complex matrices formed in our brains by chemicals breaks down, the energy stored there evaporates as waste heat and worm food... neither have you btw... How can you assert that the mind remains intact after death? If there is life after death, there definitely would be a copy of ourselves out there where we could resume our lives, or possibly there are more than one dimensions to our lives; when we die, we change to a death dimension; this could be an ultimately greater dimension. In dreams you are able to use senses such as proprioception and noiception, with full control. We create environments with our minds and desires, and we have commonly good experiences. The dream state is there, for it has been experienced. Why can we not change to a dream state in a dimension where that was possible? What I'm suggesting that when we die we return to a place that is so complex (or we return to a certain complexity), we are in a living dream, we may be exactly like ourselves, because a 'spiritual' copy of ourselves existed in this dimension that co-exists with us right this second. Dream-states occur, some place in all the dimensions there may be a place that has produced a constant dream-state. It may be the aura of the World. I believe in life after death, none of your wordplay will ever change my mind. And I'm not stupid, it's arrogant to believe you are intelligent on this matter because you are not the self of the individuals in question. They haven't come back to tell the tale. Edited October 19, 2013 by s1eep -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 If there is life after death, there definitely would be a copy of ourselves out there where we could resume our lives, or possibly there are more than one dimensions to our lives; when we die, we change to the most death-alike dimension; this could be an ultimately greater dimension. In dreams you are able to use senses such as proprioception and noiception, with full control. We create environments in with our minds and desires, and we have commonly good experiences. The dream state is there, for it has been experienced. Why can we not change to a dream state in a dimension where that was possible? What I'm suggesting that when we die we return to a place that is so complex (or we return to a certain complexity), we are in a living dream, we may be exactly like ourselves, because a 'spiritual' copy of ourselves existed in this dimension that co-exists with us right this second. Dream-states occur, some place in all the dimensions there may be a place that has produced a constant dream-state. It may be the aura of the World. I believe in life after death, none of your wordplay will ever change my mind. And I'm not stupid, it's arrogant to believe you are intelligent on this matter because you are not the self of the individuals in question. They haven't come back to tell the tale. So you are going to believe what you want to believe? BTW, I wasn't playing word games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I believe in life after death, none of your wordplay will ever change my mind Then you're not discussing this with anybody, you're just preaching. This is NOT a preaching forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I saw this in mechanical engineering school ALL the time. I would question professors on scientific laws and they would always tell me the same thing....it will always be that way. I guess if you went to a third rate school it would be easy to develop third rate ideas. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Then you're not discussing this with anybody, you're just preaching. This is NOT a preaching forum. I see you ignored the rest of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I see you ignored the rest of my post. Some inactions are inherently sound. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Some inactions are inherently sound. It wasn't inaction, it was a denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 It wasn't inaction, it was a denial. Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. What assertion did he deny? Anyway, I read the rest of your post and it doesn't say much. It is word salad. It's just a mixture of baseless assertions and bad metaphors (you may not have realised this, but sleep isn't the same as death) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. What assertion did he deny? Anyway, I read the rest of your post and it doesn't say much. It is word salad. It's just a mixture of baseless assertions and bad metaphors (you may not have realised this, but sleep isn't the same as death) It's not baseless because we have dreams and experience whole dream states. It's asserting that dream states may exist in the universe, and just because science hasn't got the range to find it, doesn't mean it's non-existent. You can hardly pass the borders of our solar system. Just like you phase into existence as a baby, why can't we fade into a new existence. I believe, all we need is time. Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. You can nullify fluctuating life, but you can't explain life's true meaning. Because of the stupidity of the word-virus, these questions aren't even considered scientific even though the importance of them for natural morality. You are as abnormal as homosexuals, but like them, you believe your ineptitude to perceive the true universe is normal. Go ahead and ignore what I said again, and use science-based rules to defeat religious-based rules, because, as you will say egotistically, "it's better". Do I believe there are things science can't discover? Yes. I don't think you'll ever visit an entity outside of our solar system, let alone travel to the far reaches of the universe, or outer-limits, to discover a living dream state. What you promote is to not have this belief, and follow the very simple in comparison, stream like a dead fish. I possess belief, and this belief is based on things I have experienced. Edited October 20, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 It's not baseless because we have dreams and experience whole dream states. It's asserting that dream states may exist in the universe, and just because science hasn't got the range to find it, doesn't mean it's non-existent. You can hardly pass the borders of our solar system. Just like you phase into existence as a baby, why can't we fade into a new existence. I believe, all we need is time. Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. You can nullify fluctuating life, but you can't explain life's true meaning. Because of the stupidity of the word-virus, these questions aren't even considered scientific even though the importance of them for natural morality. You are as abnormal as homosexuals, but like them, you believe your ineptitude to perceive the true universe is normal. Go ahead and ignore what I said again, and use science-based rules to defeat religious-based rules, because, as you will say egotistically, "it's better". Do I believe there are things science can't discover? Yes. I don't think you'll ever visit an entity outside of our solar system, let alone travel to the far reaches of the universe, or outer-limits, to discover a living dream state. What you promote is to not have this belief, and follow the very simple in comparison, stream like a dead fish. I possess belief, and this belief is based on things I have experienced. ! Moderator Note Split from the Atheism/religion thread, because there seems to be no connection. s1eep, Regarding the highlighted passage: personal attacks are not allowed, and slurs and prejudice against groups of people are also not allowed. (Rule 1) Do not assume that other parts of your post, or other posts, are acceptable merely because they have not been called out. Do not reply to this modnote in the thread. If you have an issue with it, use the report post function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) I'm sure we were discussing life after death. It's very difficult to defeat your wordplay, for that is all it is, and it's considered credible by other proclaimed experts. Expertise shouldn't only be a chance to be egotistical and lazy, and only respond to things that you like. You should be adept enough to respond with effort, instead of being reliant on your reputation. The only way to prove you are childish, and that your wordplay is egotistical nullifying of statements? A word-virus, which is a major significance in your life. That's why you can't see that life after death might exist, because you're so below the opinions of others, and word-facts which aren't true facts. I treat the Sun like a relative, you treat it as resource, the facts about life from my perspective are different from yours, and definitely more beneficent in the long-run. And I mean no insult to homosexuals, I'm simply stating that they are abnormal, and science, like them, is also abnormal. Edited October 20, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Perhaps you would like to explain this "Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. " Are you medically qualified to make such a diagnosis? Also this seems odd "Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. " Do you mean that, if I were to be clever enough to understand the universe then life after death would suddenly become less likely? Because that's what you have written. Perhaps you should stop, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now