Pahoran Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris.I think you are confused, Brent. That is what we regularly get from you.To reassure my friends Julie and Jan, Brian and I have indeed discussed the prospect of publishing our correspondence on the BoAbr manuscripts and the JSEP. Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences. Our modest hope was to provide believers and nonbelievers with an exemplary model of scholarly discourse.We have the above paragraph to provide us with what obviously matches your idea of "an exemplary model of scholarly discourse" already, thanks.[Edit: My apologies for the residual code at the beginning of this post; Iâ??m not sure whatâ??s causing it.]It's caused by a glitch in the MB. It doesn't like small size codes at the moment. Mind you, if you simply accepted the default settings, like the common folk do, instead of insisting upon making your posts stand out, as a sign of your vast importance, it wouldn't happen.Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
Dale Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Brent Metcalfe is well informed. I found information on his position through Kevin Graham and Paul Osbourne. I also ran into a brief review of John Gee's small guide on the papyrus by Seymour Bloom. I compared what they pointed to with John Gee's basic position, and became uncertain. I couldn't find any pro-Book of Abraham commentator that was dealing with what I was running into.The interest by critic's is being more pro-lific on the issues, and more polemic is coming from FARMs. FAIR did a bit better by finding Brian Hauglid. His transcript from the last FAIR cpnference is still sadly not online. And I need to buy a CD when I have the money. Of course I recognize that FAIR depends upon volunters to get transcript of FAIR conferences online.I did not see FAIR or FARMS arguments as adavancing much beyond Hugh Nibley's old points. I only saw John Gee raising a couple unique points. Brian Hauglid has been the only big advancement in arguments I have seen. Yet the critic's have had time to pick on basic LDS approaches to the papyrus much more. Link to comment
Pahoran Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It is apparently true that Brent reported what Mark Hofmann told him about the Oliver Cowdery history, but the rumors of the existence of this history predate the Hofmann affair:So they did, and were known only to a small number of specialists. The credit for announcing the actual discovery of this supposed document, and locating it in the FP vault--and attributing it to an absolutely impeccable (but anonymous) source--goes to Brent. Please give credit where it is due.Note that, by vouching for the quality of the source, while refusing to name him, Brent was asking us to trust his judgement on that point. IOW, he tied his own credibility to the rumour.And I am happy to take him up on that.Thus Brent was never the author of this rumor. Please try not to start such rumors.Alf, you of all people getting fastidious about accuracy? Isn't it a little late in the day for that?Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
Alf O'Mega Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 So they [the rumors] did [predate the Hofmann affair], and were known only to a small number of specialists.Joseph Fielding Smith's Church History and Modern Revelation was a source known only to a small number of specialists? I suppose so, since Mormon studies has always been a small specialty in the global scheme of things. But it appears to have been an apostle, in a book published by the Church, that started this particular rumor. Link to comment
Dan Vogel Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 This is what Brent did just yesterday:"Unless John Geeâ??s approach to the BoAbr has fundamentally matured, Iâ??m afraid that FAIR 2007 attendees will be treated to little more than an unbridled bluster of sophistic hubris. Iâ??m actually tempted to attend the session since I sincerely doubt that FAIR organizers will broadcast Geeâ??s presentation live via the Internet much less post a (reliable) transcript of his presentation on the FAIR Web site in a timely manner."Do you find that an attempt to celebrate meeting of the minds? I find it an astonishing attack for a first post. He not only made a gratuitous and vicious attack on Gee but managed to slip in that FAIR does not produce reliable transcripts. Considering the repeated promises of a forthcoming book I find the "timely" part more odd than mean.I'm sure he would like to celebrate with Gee, but given his long history and his very recent dismisal of critics, that doesn't seem likely. Hauglid is a different matter. But I think Brent's complaint is really a wish for something different. I think he's challenging FAIR to post an accurate transcript so he doesn't have to make the trip. I think he has some criticisms of how Hauglid's paper was handled last year.And this was just his first sentence. How do you call for dialogue and then justify that, Dan? You have completely won over just about everyone here because you don't behave like that so you obviously know the difference. I continue to ask...why does he do that and then complain that he is not taken seriously? I am not the one holding myself up as any standard to the world of real scholarship or gentlemanly behavior, Brent does. Again, how do you justify his opening salvo just yesterday? I neither justify nor condemn it. I think he was very disappointed that Brian withdrew and was replaced by someone as outspoken as Gee. To Brent's credit, he did mention that posting on message boards brings out the worst in people, including himself, which is one reason he has been scarce lately.I have not seen Brent admit to any error in all of the years he has posted so the problem with a broadbrush declaration that anyone is "closer in their views" means the other guy has moved not Brent. I keep asking and this is something that needed to be answered because as Jerry so nicely demonstrates, some members take this stuff very seriously. Brent is in a difficult situation--wanting to respond and not wanting to hurt his relationship with Brian. Frankly, I think Brian should explain it himself. I suspect that his presentation at FAIR would have done that, which is probably why Brent was so disappointed at his withdrawal. A lot of countermos don't tolerate a lot of questions and I take a lot of abuse for being the questioner. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. I don't mind if they are real questions. Anything can be questioned into nothingness, because nothing is known with absolute certainty. Extreme skepticism leads to relativism and nihilism. So I try to stay away from unreasonable doubts.Again...the example becomes the subject of attack. CGU is just one of several programs. All of the program chairs are funded by believers. Do you think those Catholics have compromised scholarship? Your assessment is naive on two fronts, those Mormons and Catholics don't control the money once it goes into someone else's bank account and there is no tenure for the Chair. All of the programs will be at the mercy of CGU not their ecclesiastical leaders.But to get the money certain promises were made, even before money changed hands. But I think it's still too early to speak about what will or will not happen. In my world CGU is irrelevant. That might change, but for now it's not worth even bringing up. When you can cite published works or dissertations, then I might listen.As to how insulting the output of a lot of the countermo books are to the intelligence of believers....I don't think that is a point of dispute. I see no reason to deny it and I think it weakens your position to do so. When I am told how mean I am I see no point in arguing. So what? I'm not the one out there holding myself up as an expert and have no reason to be anything at all.Anything that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. The average member couldn't tell the difference between Ed Decker and Ed Ashment. Members need to get used to the idea that everyone doesn't believe Mormonism, and some have good reasons, and even want to express them in a scholarly way. I don't think that should threaten believers. Scholarship can't disprove religion, but they might have an impact (a good one) on the trajectory of that faith. Link to comment
Calm Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Anything that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. This kind of statement is absolutely bizarre to me, as if the typical LDS divides the world into faith-promoting and insulting and nothing else.What is faith promoting about the fact that rice is a popular dish in China? Nothing so it must be insulting to the typical LDS, but for the life of me, I can't see how. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 Dale:I did not see FAIR or FARMS arguments as adavancing much beyond Hugh Nibley's old points. I only saw John Gee raising a couple unique points. Brian Hauglid has been the only big advancement in arguments I have seen. Yet the critic's have had time to pick on basic LDS approaches to the papyrus much more.I understand your basic frustration Dale. However, we are moving beyond the points that Nibley made. In point of fact, not many of them on the Book of Abraham have been refuted at all. And I don't see why unique ideas always have to be the priority in everything either. But yet again on that score, my 20 podcasts on Facsimile 2, figure 7 is going beyond what anyone either LDS or non-LDS have *ever* looked into in this one figure. All the critics have ever done with that is guffaw. I know we have been silent, more or less, on the issues of the papyri, but on the facsimiles, I have been one of the more vocal and vehemently researching of the LDS scholars, and I am finding more and more and more. Unfortunately, all critics ever do is make fun of the materials instead of understand them. So we all have short comings, but bringing out unique things is not one of them with we LDS on the facsimiles. And, AND....... they certainly are part and parcel of the major and main issues of the papyri. There is more than enough in them alone to keep us all going til we die, but who is willing to explore them in any sort of exhaustive manner? Other than a very, very, *very* few of us.......... and for a bonus, I present my podcasts for absolutely free of charge, because I think the subject is worth learning, and I'll be damned if I am going to make money an issue on something so important. For me it is not about making money, it is about sharing the new, interesting, and extended information on the facsimiles. Just so we all know..... Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 In point of fact, not many of [Nibley's points] on the Book of Abraham have been refuted at all. I beg to differ.EDIT: By the way, transcripts are much easier for me than listening to a podcast. So if you could point me to transcripts of your presentations on fig 7, that would be much appreciated. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 I for one, have yet to see anyone much deal with his book Abraham in Egypt. I have seen guffawing, but not interaction and analysis. And the 2nd edition of it includes an enormous amount of the study he did in the Improvement Era (1967-1970) on the New Abraham. Show me where refutations of Nibley's Abraham in Egypt are then......... Link to comment
William Schryver Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Kerry: In point of fact, not many of [Nibley's points] on the Book of Abraham have been refuted at all.CK: I beg to differ.Kerry: I for one, have yet to see anyone much deal with his book Abraham in Egypt. I have seen guffawing, but not interaction and analysis. And the 2nd edition of it includes an enormous amount of the study he did in the Improvement Era (1967-1970) on the New Abraham. Show me where refutations of Nibley's Abraham in Egypt are then.........I must agree with Kerry on this point. I have never seen anyone deal with the Abraham in Egypt stuff, or The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri stuff, or the Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham (Tvedtnes, Gee, Hauglid) stuff. There has been much refutation (some of it valid and effective) of Nibleyâ??s arguments vis- Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Hi Kerry,Here's one:The Extremes of EclecticismIt's short, but poignant.Here's another:Egyptology and the Book of AbrahamAnd of course, similar criticisms are levelled with somewhat less credibility by Larson, the Tanners, etc. Rebuttals of specific Egyptological points from Abraham in Egypt are scattered all across the literature on the Book of Abraham, including the work of Robert Ritner and even that of Kevin Barney. And both critics and apologists alike have expressed discomfort with Nibleyite parallelomiania. The published rebuttals, moreover, don't cover nearly as much territory as has been covered by ambitious critics on message boards like this one.The task of gathering the various rebuttals of Nibley's points into a single, lengthy critique certainly remains to be accomplished, but I think it has been neglected more because of lack of interest than because it isn't possible.-CK Link to comment
William Schryver Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 CK:I find myself wondering if you have actually read the documents at the end of the links you provided, or if you simply assume that they address the issues because of their titles.In the first place, the Olson book review of Abraham in Egypt (in its brief 2 pages!) fails to address any of the content of Nibleyâ??s book. Rather, Olson attacks Nibley solely on what he (Olson) considers to be a flawed methodology of Nibley eclectically gathering data from disparate periods of time in the ancient Near East. Presumably, Olson would have us believe that Nibley fails to effectively demonstrate that the parallels he cites are valid â?? but if so, Olson fails to cite specifically wherein Nibley falls short. The Olson review is entirely inadequate to the task of demonstrating that Nibleyâ??s book is deficient. He attacks the method without ever actually addressing the material.The Thompson article, on the other hand, is exclusively dedicated to demonstrating that Joseph Smith couldnâ??t translate Egyptian (in this case, the Facsimiles). Of course, such an approach fails to do exactly what I described in my previous post: deal with the text of the Book of Abraham.In short, neither of the articles to which you direct us succeeds, to any degree, in doing precisely what I challenge the critics to do in my previous post: deal, for once, with the content of the Book of Abraham, irrespective of what they believe to be its origin. Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 CK:I find myself wondering if you have actually read the documents at the end of the links you provided, or if you simply assume that they address the issues because of their titles.In the first place, the Olson book review of Abraham in Egypt (in its brief 2 pages!) fails to address any of the content of Nibleyâ??s book. Rather, Olson attacks Nibley solely on what he (Olson) considers to be a flawed methodology of Nibley eclectically gathering data from disparate periods of time in the ancient Near East. Presumably, Olson would have us believe that Nibley fails to effectively demonstrate that the parallels he cites are valid â?? but if so, Olson fails to cite specifically wherein Nibley falls short. The Olson review is entirely inadequate to the task of demonstrating that Nibleyâ??s book is deficient. He attacks the method without ever actually addressing the material.The Thompson article, on the other hand, is exclusively dedicated to demonstrating that Joseph Smith couldnâ??t translate Egyptian (in this case, the Facsimiles). Of course, such an approach fails to do exactly what I described in my previous post: deal with the text of the Book of Abraham.In short, neither of the articles to which you direct us succeeds, to any degree, in doing precisely what I challenge the critics to do in my previous post: deal, for once, with the content of the Book of Abraham, irrespective of what they believe to be its origin.Hi Will, Both are relevant to Nibley's book. In particular, I am very much in agreement with Olson's conclusion that Nibley's methodology is flawed. As for the content of the Book of Abraham, if you're looking for specifics I can't link you to every there ever was on the subject (as that would be a massive undertaking), but one place to start might be The following thread:http://www.mormonapologetics.org/discuss/v...26&start=42Halfway down the page Gazelam repeats some Nibley/Rhodes claims, and I proceed to engage those claims. The discussion continues for a few pages, mostly just between me and Gaz. You can ignore most everybody else's posts.-CK Link to comment
Dan Vogel Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 This kind of statement is absolutely bizarre to me, as if the typical LDS divides the world into faith-promoting and insulting and nothing else.What is faith promoting about the fact that rice is a popular dish in China? Nothing so it must be insulting to the typical LDS, but for the life of me, I can't see how.It is bizarre ... to anyone who can't read it in context.Anything [written about Mormonism] that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. There! Link to comment
juliann Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I think he was very disappointed that Brian withdrew and was replaced by someone as outspoken as Gee. There was a lot of negative comment when Gee "withdrew" at one time. Can't seem to win here. Personal or professional needs can interfere with life, unfortunately. It happens and it has happened before with others. With the invective against Gee, I think this is good timing.But to get the money certain promises were made, even before money changed hands.Again, there are at least five councils being put together in the same way. This is not a Mormon thing. You would not be able to pick out the scholars in these programs from any other forum in that very liberal school. I talked to Bushman about a Mormon program years ago and his comment then was that such a program would be a double edged sword because there were no guarantees that the department wouldnt' eventually be filled by people hostile to Mormonism. The only reason for skepticism is a belief the believing communities are irrelevant...but it is the believing communities who shape the religion and canon that the scholars study. There is a place for both. I don't expect to see anything come from this soon...but it will eventually.Anything that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. The average member couldn't tell the difference between Ed Decker and Ed Ashment. Members need to get used to the idea that everyone doesn't believe Mormonism, and some have good reasons, and even want to express them in a scholarly way. I don't think that should threaten believers. Scholarship can't disprove religion, but they might have an impact (a good one) on the trajectory of that faith. But the operative word is "if they even know". Since most don't I think a judgment based on something they have no knowledge of is rather harsh and uncharitable. I find most Mormons to be quite intelligent and they quickly understand the issues when they are made aware of them. The longer I am involved with the scholarly side of things the more I find myself admiring those who just live their lives trying to be good people who make life better for others. Link to comment
Hawkmoon Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is bizarre ... to anyone who can't read it in context.Anything [written about Mormonism] that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. There!This is the kind of belittling haughtiness that lead to the problem demonstrated on this thread... perhaps you should attend one of Brent's Raising Discourse With Mormons: The Exemplary Model seminars? For one who purports to be a "serious scholar" it would probably be a wise decision. Link to comment
Calm Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is bizarre ... to anyone who can't read it in context.Anything [written about Mormonism] that isn't faith promoting is insulting to believers, if they even know of their existence. There!Right. There are no neutral facts about Mormonism in existence according to typical LDS belief.The fact that Brigham Young was named "Brigham Young" must be seen as faith promoting...or insulting.I can't see either, but I suppose that just proves I'm not a typical LDS.I find most Mormons to be quite intelligent and they quickly understand the issues when they are made aware of them. My experience as well. I wonder just where these 'typical' LDS can be found? Link to comment
William Schryver Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 CK: Hi Will, Both are relevant to Nibley's book. In particular, I am very much in agreement with Olson's conclusion that Nibley's methodology is flawed.Well, both you and Olson may agree that Nibleyâ??s methodology is flawed, but Olson, for one, fails to demonstrate it at all in his two page review of Abraham in Egypt. Thatâ??s all Iâ??m saying. All Olson effectively says is, â??I donâ??t like the method of using disparate ancient parallels to establish the historicity of the Book of Abraham.â? But he never once addresses any of those parallels in such a manner that we, as readers, might assess its strength or lack thereof in reference to Joseph Smithâ??s Book of Abraham.In addition, I don't see where Thompson's article is relevant at all tot he subject matter at hand: the text of the Book of Abraham. It is purely focused on the translation of the facsimiles. As for the content of the Book of Abraham, if you're looking for specifics I can't link you to every there ever was on the subject (as that would be a massive undertaking), but one place to start might be The following thread:http://www.mormonapologetics.org/discuss/v...26&start=42Halfway down the page Gazelam repeats some Nibley/Rhodes claims, and I proceed to engage those claims. The discussion continues for a few pages, mostly just between me and Gaz. You can ignore most everybody else's posts.I donâ??t think â??Gazelamâ? makes very good arguments. In the first place, he obviously is not very well acquainted with the subject matter. He makes several obviously erroneous claims. Nor does he even come close to citing the more compelling evidence that I think is out there â?? a significant portion of which I have identified in Traditions of the Early Life of Abraham. Unfortunately, the book does not attempt to summarize the significant parallels to the Book of Abraham that would definitely not have been available to Joseph Smith. It is simply a compendium of everything they could find on the topic. Iâ??ve marked my copy up with numerous pencilings when I thought it touched upon something significant, and Iâ??ve promised myself that, at some point, I will go through and make a table or list of the important items. But I havenâ??t yet taken the time to do so. All the same, I followed the link (provided by â??Fortigurnâ? to IRRâ??s page on Abrahamic parallels (a sparse page at that!), and I the things you cited yourself. My reaction is that, while it is true that Joseph Smith may have had access to and some knowledge of Josephus and the Book of Jasher, I find it highly implausible that he had a significant library stocked with every extant work that mentions Abraham in the ancient world. Furthermore, there are several things I have identified in my studies that I do not believe were available to him in any form at the time. One day when Iâ??m ambitious and donâ??t have two or three film projects occupying my attention, I really must sit down and create a list of the things I believe will prove my point. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Um just the same as well, Olsen deals with a ***600** page book in a mere two pages?!? And you CK, think THIS is dealing with Nibley? Come now, don't make me utterly guffaw here bub........ Oh and, you also say:I am very much in agreement with Olson's conclusion that Nibley's methodology is flawedI have found numerous Egyptologists who do the same......... Nibley is using the standard method of finding parallels. Time has nothing to do with many of them, in other cases, it is problematic. But if other Egyptologists use this same method, why is only Nibley singled out as flawed? Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 we certainly shall have to have that conversation sometime. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Yes we will, but I seriously suspect you are gonna have to bone up more on Nibley's book, the 2nd edition is the updated, double checked for footnote accuracy, and the whole enchalada of his argument.......... uh, as a help, honestly, I'm truly not kidding, I have 10 podcasts on simplifying Nibley's book (although its the 1st edition I am working through), and I have included other materials Nibley did not use. Link to comment
Chris Smith Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is not only Nibley who is singled out. After all, Dale Broadhurst, Tom Donofrio, and the folks who appeal to B. H. Roberts' VoH parallels all take lots of heat for drawing parallels between random texts without demonstrating, for example, substantive evidence that JS was exposed to the source. Applying the same standard to Nibley's parallels, we'd need to find substantive evidence that accurate information about Abraham was transmitted from ~2000 BC to whatever document we find parallels in. In most cases this isn't even plausible, let alone likely. The critics at least go out of their way to establish the plausibility of their parallels. I recommend you take a look at Ben McGuire's article on this subject: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htmJeff Lindsay also put together an amusing list of parallels between the Book of Mormon and Leaves of Grass (parodying the parallelomania approach) that might prove informative.-CKEDIT: I see you edited your post. Just so everybody knows, I'm not crazy. Kerry originally asked why Nibley gets singled out when his method of finding parallels is the standard method. It's not the standard method, of course. I know of no scholar who looks at texts 2,000 years apart with no clear trajectory between them, finds a minor parallel, and assumes the later instance is a borrowing from the earlier-- particularly not when the stakes are as high as in the present case. Generally, the more controversial a point is, the higher standard of evidence is required. Link to comment
juliann Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 But I think Brent's complaint is really a wish for something different. I think he's challenging FAIR to post an accurate transcript so he doesn't have to make the trip. I think he has some criticisms of how Hauglid's paper was handled last year.I really want a reply to these continued accusations. First, Hauglid's paper isn't even on the website let alone "handled". Second, no organization has a responsibility to put anything on a website. We put on a conference. If people want to hear it they can come or they can buy the audio. There seems to be an increasing expectation that a group of volunteers produce an awful lot of stuff on demand for free. I am astonished to see anyone complain that we are not providing them free online viewing! Where is this sense of entitlement coming from? If anyone wants to pay for online viewing step up!Brent has made the accusation that FAIR produced an "unreliable" paper by Gee. I would like the details on that. Has Brent transcribed the audio himself and found gross errors? What are they? Why doesn't he inform instead of accuse so it can be corrected if that is the case? Link to comment
Pahoran Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It is not only Nibley who is singled out. After all, Dale Broadhurst, Tom Donofrio, and the folks who appeal to B. H. Roberts' VoH parallels all take lots of heat for drawing parallels between random texts without demonstrating, for example, substantive evidence that JS was exposed to the source. Applying the same standard to Nibley's parallels, we'd need to find substantive evidence that accurate information about Abraham was transmitted from ~2000 BC to whatever document we find parallels in.Really? Is that what you think?The point, as Nibley himself clearly points out in a number of places, so that only the most terminally obtuse can miss it, is not that any of these stories represent "what really happened" to or with Abraham, but that they represent a genuine textual tradition which dropped out of sight a good while before 1836.But I'm sure that, having had that explained to you, you will blithely ignore it in about fifteen minutes' time. It's what your lot do.In most cases this isn't even plausible, let alone likely. The critics at least go out of their way to establish the plausibility of their parallels. That was funny!I've just remembered a line from a Billy Joel song: "Now he gives them the stand-up routine in LA." Is that you, CK?I recommend you take a look at Ben McGuire's article on this subject: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htmJeff Lindsay also put together an amusing list of parallels between the Book of Mormon and Leaves of Grass (parodying the parallelomania approach) that might prove informative.Indeed. You will find that the (heh heh) "critics" rely upon "parallels" as slender as common two-word phrases, while Nibley relies on parallels of specific, detailed situations. The famous encounter between Enoch and Mahijah (Book of Moses) and Enoch and MHWY (Book of Enoch) being the first one that came to my mind. But I suppose you will tell us, with a dead straight face, that that is no more surprising than "forts of security" and "places of security," right?Regards,Pahoran Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.