Willie71 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So do I take it you are ignoring the words in the quote you posted (page 27) and now side with Richard Carrier? Reminder That sentence can only make sense if the historical Jesus existed. Where is the confirmation bias in that? It is plain English to me. I haven't read the Carrier book yet. I will form an opinion based on the evidence presented, when I read the book. The sentence refers to people's statements of belief, separate from the actual fact of the matter. 10% of people in the US believe they have seen UFOs, that does not make it true. The actual sentence you used as evidence removed the qualifier at the end: Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesus" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.[3][4]Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, [5][6][7] these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions. So, while they advocate for a historical Jesus, they confirm what others say by broadening their definition of historical Jesus into the realm of myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Richard Carrier's work is written in probabilities. Carrier does not claim that Jesus did not exist. Carrier has the existence of a real human historical Jesus at about 30% probable. This conversation isn't about absolutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I haven't read the Carrier book yet. I will form an opinion based on the evidence presented, when I read the book. The sentence refers to people's statements of belief, separate from the actual fact of the matter. 10% of people in the US believe they have seen UFOs, that does not make it true. The actual sentence you used as evidence removed the qualifier at the end: So, while they advocate for a historical Jesus, they confirm what others say by broadening their definition of historical Jesus into the realm of myth. So what is your point? I'm trying not to post on this thread, and I'll let you others work out whether Jesus was real or not. I am going back over the thread to see whether the claim that I am repeating myself is correct. The first 19 pages seemed tedious but OK. Then pages 20, 21, 22, I don't even get involved. Page 23 and 24 we involve ourselves in the stupid discussion about Dionysus. Page 25 pick on Rob time Page 26 discussion on the grandsons of Jude. Page 27 discussion on historical recordings, and first mention of the Shroud of Turin in this thread. Further discussion on the value of the thread. There was no evidence of repeating myself in my opinion. Bowing out for a while all the same. Cheers. Edited March 25, 2015 by Robittybob1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) Below is an article about a seventh century manuscript basically saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. http://rt.com/usa/jesus-wife-king-papyrus-740/ Edited March 27, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Below is an article about a fourth century manuscript basically saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. http://rt.com/usa/jesus-wife-king-papyrus-740/ Which, yet again, does not meet the criteria Ten oz has asked for. The scroll is by an unknown author and written centuries after Jesus [is said to have] lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Below is an article about a seventh century manuscript basically saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had children. http://rt.com/usa/jesus-wife-king-papyrus-740/ Definitely looks like a forgery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Below is a link to website whos' author claims to be an ex-jesuit, there are many articles on this website and the link below is alledgedly to the Sangreal Blood-line or Rose-Line, this Sangreal Blood-Line also shows Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, how authentic it is I don't know. http://one-evil.org/content/bloodline_03c_sangreal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Below is a link to website whos' author claims to be an ex-jesuit, there are many articles on this website and the link below is alledgedly to the Sangreal Blood-line or Rose-Line, this Sangreal Blood-Line also shows Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, how authentic it is I don't know. http://one-evil.org/content/bloodline_03c_sangreal.html Historical research has to be a lot more critical than that Ant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Historical research has to be a lot more critical than that Ant. Is it not a point to start from?, how accurate are these "family trees" may be a place to start in deciding its' accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Below is a link to website whos' author claims to be an ex-jesuit, there are many articles on this website and the link below is alledgedly to the Sangreal Blood-line or Rose-Line, this Sangreal Blood-Line also shows Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, how authentic it is I don't know. "According to the results of a carbon dating test just now released, the so-called Gospel of Jesuss Wife unveiled at a conference in Rome a year-and-a-half-ago could have originated as far back as the 700s, shattering allegations that the fragment of paper had been produced more recently by fraudsters." Proving that something is old is not equal to proving that something is true. The Iliad and Odyssey are over 3,000yrs old. Doesnt mean they are true. A story written in 700's by an unknown source with no reference material to account for the 700yrs lapse between events to recording provides nothing useful to this conversation. Edited March 28, 2015 by Ten oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie71 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Renaissance painters depicted Jesus as white with blondish hair. That doesn't make it accurate either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Renaissance painters depicted Jesus as white with blondish hair. That doesn't make it accurate either. If the Cuileain line through Joseph went back to Dan, then He probably had Blue Eyes and so may well have had Blonde Hair! Did the Tribe of Dan not differentiate from all the other Tribes of Israel by the fact that Dans' Tribe had Blue Eyes? ??? Edited March 28, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie71 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 If the Cuileain line through Joseph went back to Dan, then He probably had Blue Eyes and so may well have had Blonde Hair! Did the Tribe of Dan not differentiate from all the other Tribes of Israel by the fact that Dans' Tribe had Blue Eyes? ??? Ummm...... Joseph didn't have sex with Mary. There is no lineage even though the bible claims there is. It has two contradictory lineages. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus Matthew's genealogy is considerably more complex than Luke's. It is overtly schematic, organized into three tesseradecads (sets of fourteen), each of a distinct character: The first is rich in annotations, including four mothers and mentioning the brothers of Judah and the brother Zerah of Perez. The second spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, ending with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon." The last, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects Joseph to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names, remarkably few for such a long period. The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen seems deliberate. Various explanations have been suggested: fourteen is twice seven, symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.[3] The rendering into Greek of Hebrew names in this genealogy is mostly in accord with the Septuagint, but there are a few peculiarities. The form Asaph seems to identify King Asa with the psalmist Asaph. Likewise, some see the form Amos for King Amon as suggesting the prophet Amos, though the Septuagint does have this form. Both may simply be assimilations to more familiar names. More interesting, though, are the unique forms Boes (Boaz, LXX Boos) and Rachab (Rahab, LXX Raab).[4] In the Gospel of Luke, the genealogy appears at the beginning of the public life of Jesus. This version is in ascending order from Joseph to Adam.[12] After telling of the baptism of Jesus, Luke 3:23–38 states, "Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, ..." (3:23) and continues on until "Adam, which was [the son] of God." (3:38) The Greek text of Luke's Gospel does not use the word "son" in the genealogy after "son of Joseph". Robertson notes that, in the Greek, "Luke has the article tou repeating uiou (Son) except before Joseph".[13] This genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is an otherwise little-known son of David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament.[14] In the ancestry of David, Luke agrees completely with the Old Testament. Cainan is included between Shelah and Arphaxad, following the Septuagint text (though not included in the Masoretic text followed by most modern Bibles). Augustine[15] notes that the count of generations in the Book of Luke is 76, a number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins.[16] This count also agrees with the seventy generations from Enoch[17] set forth in the Book of Enoch, which Luke probably knew.[18] Though Luke never counts the generations as Matthew does, it appears he also followed hebdomadic principle of working in sevens. However, Irenaeus counts only 72 generations from Adam.[19] The reading "son of Aminadab, son of Aram," from the Old Testament is well attested. The Nestle-Aland critical edition, considered the best authority by most modern scholars, accepts the variant "son of Aminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni,"[20] counting the 76 generations from Adam rather than God.[21] Luke's qualification "as was supposed" (ἐνομίζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. From as early as John of Damascus, the view of "as was supposed of Joseph" regards Luke as calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning that Heli (Ἠλί, Heli) was the maternal grandfather of Jesus, with Luke tracing the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.[22] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli". There are, however, other interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy. Some[23] see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew. This was one of my early indications that the bible was a myth. Combined with the omission of the virgin birth in the first gospel, or a physical Jesus (spiritual realm Jesus), the evolution of the myth through the gospels to better fit Lord Raglan's Hero, or a direct copy of Zoroaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster, predating Jesus by 4000 years, or at the time of creation in the old testament if the bible is history, if you prefer, there seemed no way to reconcile this as a historical text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Ummm...... Joseph didn't have sex with Mary. There is no lineage even though the bible claims there is. It has two contradictory lineages. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus This was one of my early indications that the bible was a myth. Combined with the omission of the virgin birth in the first gospel, or a physical Jesus (spiritual realm Jesus), the evolution of the myth through the gospels to better fit Lord Raglan's Hero, or a direct copy of Zoroaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster, predating Jesus by 4000 years, or at the time of creation in the old testament if the bible is history, if you prefer, there seemed no way to reconcile this as a historical text. What a load of old balderdash, Iam not a subsciber to the above including an Immaculate Birth, who are the Dan-ish, You know that place near Sweden??? ? Do You care to go off to copy and paste more nonsense - look deeper into History! !!! Edited March 28, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie71 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 On the appearance of Jesus, from Wikipedia again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. In 2001, a new attempt was made to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the BBC, France 3 and Discovery Channel,[53] used one of three first-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel. A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.[54] The face that Neave constructed suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art.[55] Additional information about Jesus's skin color and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham.[55] Using third-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people[56]—Goodacre proposed that Jesus's skin color would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image. He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard.[57] This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is "disgraceful" for a man to have long hair.[58] As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus's family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.[57] Although not literally the face of Jesus,[54] the result of the study determined that Jesus's skin would have been more olive-colored than white,[55] and that he would have most likely probably looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day.. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[57] What a load of old balderdash, Iam not a subsciber to the above including an Immaculate Birth, who are the Dan-ish, You know that place near Sweden??? ? Do You care to go off to copy and paste more nonsense - look deeper into History! !!! Would you like a list of the books and articles I have read over the past 30 years? What I have listed is a sequence of events from the bible, which is supposed to be the proof that Jesus existed, as he does not appear in any other historical references from that time period. I have searched for any proofs from history, and none of the proofs that people publish are anything more than an argument from incredulity, or a call to prove he didn't exist. On the other hand, historians have searched for any confirmation, and only report the three sources, listed earlier, none reliable in any way. If you want proof Ceasar Agustus existed, or King Tut, there is no way to claim they didn't exist. Jesus on the other hand, no such evidence exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Try a little research Willie, Pontius Pilates Scottish Connection and Two Jerusalems, The Second being Edinburgh!!! ! And No I wouldn't care for Your list of books from the last 30 years because You Have Learned Nonsense From Them! !!! Edited March 28, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 If the Cuileain line through Joseph went back to Dan, then He probably had Blue Eyes and so may well have had Blonde Hair! Did the Tribe of Dan not differentiate from all the other Tribes of Israel by the fact that Dans' Tribe had Blue Eyes? ??? Where did you get that from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 ! Moderator Note Ant, settle down. Members have taken the time to respond to you with rational arguments, so please pay them the same courtesy in your responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 ! Moderator Note Ant, settle down. Members have taken the time to respond to you with rational arguments, so please pay them the same courtesy in your responses. Iam a Man of Faith and let My passion for this subject pour fourth in replying to Willie hyper, I pride Myself in how My folks have raised Me to be kind and courteous when engaging with others and You were correct to point out the forums etiquette out! I appologise Willie for My harsh response to Your posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 @ Ant Sinclair, do you have any source another than Christian text that even prove Joseph was real? If not than you are using scripture to prove history rather than using history to support scripture. In scripture Joseph is said to be of the Davidic line as is Mary, Matthew:1 Luke: 3. That is Hebrew. David is said to have been the first king of the Israelites. Of course David is a uncertain historical figure. Believed to have existed in the Bronze Age it is unclear what his genealogy would have been assuming he was real. Even scripture is unclear. Luke starts David's genealogy at Adam while Matthew begins it at Abrham. Far as the this thread's topic is concerned connecting Jesus to Joseph or David is not supportive of anything. All the inclusion of Joseph and David does is multiply the number of mythical historical figures we need evidence for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Where did you get that from? The trouble with researching historical events Rob is that facts often get twisted mainly due to political aims. Take a look at this attachment that shows that Josephs' lineage could have come from two directions, but both of these two directions return to Judah, which is correct If EITHER? http://www.cookancestry.com/Biblical%20Genealogy/images/10%20Lineage%20of%20King%20David.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Jesus (if he existed) was certainly a descendant of King David. But then so was everybody else around at the time: The Bible says Jesus was a descendant of King David. But with 1,000 years between them, and since King David's son Solomon was said to have had about 1,000 wives and mistresses, couldn't many of Jesus's peers in Holy Land have claimed the same royal ancestor? Theory tells us that not only would all of Jesus's contemporaries be descended from King David, but that this would probably be the case even if Solomon had been into monogamy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 Try a little research Willie, Pontius Pilates Scottish Connection That appears to be a made-up story: http://www.scotlandmag.com/magazine/issue48/12009545.html There is an ancient tradition linking his birthplace with the small village of Bisenti, Samnite territory, in today's Abruzzo region of Central Italy.[15] There are ruins of a Roman house in Bisenti alleged to be the house of Pontius Pilate.[17] There is also a tradition in Scotland that Pilate was born in Fortingall, a small village in the Perthshire Highlands.[18] Other places such as Tarragona in Spain and Forchheim in Germany have been proposed as Pilate's birthplace, but it is more likely that he was a Roman citizen, born in central Italy.[19][20][21] Another legend places his death at Mount Pilatus, in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate In other words: no one knows. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie71 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I received the Carrier book yesterday, and started reading it. My initial impressions are that its a balanced look at the evidence for and against both the historical, and mythological jesus. There is an interesting discussion regarding the weakness of the consensus position that Jesus was real based on outdated methodology that hasn't been challenged. He notes many exaggerations in claims by the mythical camp as well. I'll post more as I keep reading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 As it was (supposedly) an Emperor who had him crucified, why are there no records of that? John 19 New International Version (NIV)Jesus Sentenced to Be Crucified 19 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face. 4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!” 6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.” 7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” 8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” 12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” 13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. 16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. The Crucifixion of Jesus So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaicis called Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.” 23 When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. 24 “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.” This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, “They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.”[a] So this is what the soldiers did. 25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he lovedstanding nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,”27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. The Death of Jesus 28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.”29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c]37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d] The Burial of Jesus 38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. You received two Rep points for Your statement above Strange and it appears You have not really studied the subject!!! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 You received two Rep points for Your statement above Strange and it appears You have not really studied the subject!!! ! ! Moderator Note #1, the whole point of this thread is to find supportive evidence for a real Jesus outside of Christian scripture. You should have gleaned this by now. The Bible can't be used to corroborate its own claims. #2, please spend less time admonishing others about their study habits. In general, refrain from personal judgments about things you have no way of knowing. And #3, please spend less time concerned over the reputation system. Further posts about it in any thread not set aside for that purpose will be considered off-topic and will be placed in the Trash Can, as will any replies to this modnote that don't go through official Report This Post channels. 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