Jump to content

Heresy 240: Ten Heretical Years


Black Crow

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, asongofheresy said:

According to Hadiths Mhmd did start his preaching during 600 something CE but its way too late for Quranic timeline, he should be alive during 300+ CE or that's what some Quranic Muslims like me believe, we also don't think Mhmd was ever present in today's Saudi Arabia and would rather place him in Yemen or Oman, these two countries has the earliest traces of Islam and Yemen has the first Quran manuscripts after all. 

*I am writing prophets name without vowels*

I quite understand why you would write without vowels. The ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah text spells God's name as YHWH which was revealed to them by Moses, but it is too holy to be spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Melifeather said:

I quite understand why you would write without vowels. The ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah text spells God's name as YHWH which was revealed to them by Moses, but it is too holy to be spoken.

Not to be disrespectful to anyone's beliefs, but this reluctance to speak God's name is similar to The one whose name may not be spoken - the Great Other.

Going back to the ancient Canannites, YHWH, commonly accepted as sounding like Yahweh (or Jehovah) was once thought of as a lesser god to the supreme god, El. Even the Book of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage.

In ASOIAF, the Great Other may be a more powerful god than R'hllor as no one escapes death. A war between gods should be something to be terrified of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 4:31 AM, Black Crow said:

The first post in what has become HERESY was posted exactly ten years ago:

 

The Wall The Watch and a Heresy November 28 2011

 

To pile heresy upon heresy I’d like to expand on my theory that the Others and the Children are one and the same, by looking at the Wall and the Nights Watch.

The Wall is a 700 foot high barrier of solid ice, supposedly constructed by Bran the Builder with the aid of the Children. Like Hadrian’s Wall which provided GRRM with his inspiration we can reasonably suppose that Bran himself had very little to do with it since building a structure on this scale required the magic of the Children rather than the labour of men, but lets not argue about that because there seems to be no doubt about the involvement of the Children.

Its when we start to look at the purpose of the Wall that things start to get a little sticky because it was all so very long ago – a whole 8,000 years ago. To put this in context, the current action in Westeros is taking place 300 years after Aegon’s Conquest, which for reference purposes we can equate to William of Normandy’s Conquest of England in 1066. Scroll back 1,000 years and we have the Roman invasion of Celtic Britain in AD 43. The Iron Age (or if you prefer the arrival of the Andals) is reckoned to have started around 650 years before that, and the Bronze age as long ago as 2,000 years before the arrival of the Romans. So far as recorded histories go, the Biblical Old Testament goes back less than 4,000 years and includes stories of kings ruling for hundreds of years, all of which gives considerable point to the words of Samwell Tarly:

The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it.

Not surprising really and when we have GRRM expressing his fondness for using the “unreliable narrator” and giving point to it by not just writing this passage into AFfC but repeating it word for word in ADwD we too need to question the orthodoxy of everything we’ve been told thus far about the Children, the Others and the Wall, especially as all sorts of (metaphorical) cracks are appearing.

Supposedly, after the Others were defeated the Wall was built to prevent their return, yet there’s an immediate contradiction here in that we have an enemy who comes out of the cold and yet the barrier is built of ice rather than fire. There’s also a second contradiction in that if the Children helped raise up this barrier they left themselves on the wrong side of it which rather defeats the object of the exercise.

This is why I’ve suggested in the past that the Wall was not built to defend Westeros against the Others, but that the Children are the Others and that it was built as their bastion against the threat from the south. There is magic in the Wall certainly, but does it work both ways and if it’s critical to the security of the Wall where does the Nights Watch come into it?

The Wall we’re told, is safe so long as the Nights Watch remains true, but what exactly does this mean? We know that the Watch have fought amongst themselves in the past so a little matter of sticking a knife into the current Lord Commander isn’t necessarily a trigger for destruction by itself. There’s got to be something more to it.

Consider the oath:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Nights Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

It can be read straightforwardly as meaning that they are to watch over the realm through the dark of the night, when all those terrors that so exercise Mel the Red Witch supposedly abound, but what if its changed. The fact they wear black and emphasise the darkness, embraced by Bloodraven and the Children, can be read as contradicting rather than complementing the bit about fire and light.

At first sight this might sound a touch unlikely but then there’s the matter of the Night’s King, supposedly a good guy who fell in love with one of the Others and magically enslaved his own men. Suppose that’s mince – suppose that what really happened was that the Nights Watch were originally allied to the Children/Others, but for some reason changed sides and justified themselves by claiming that those still loyal to the children were ensorcelled?

Could discovery of this explain why Bloodraven, himself a Lord Commander of the Watch, went over to the Children – after learning the truth, just as Jon may be about to do?

 

When I read this post10 years ago, I thought owwww shit...he is right...and I wasn't happy about it. However, I couldn't escape that it mostly fit. It was clear from the tone of the series and how it artfully trudged through all the faults of humanity, realpolitik, unglamorous deaths, and brutalities of war that it was pointing to a tragic or at least melancholy ending. I believe one of the series primary themes, beyond entertainment, is that compromise should not be scorned. Both compromise with other tribes and compromise with our own values, goals and ambitions. I still agree with the central tenants of this theory today and have enjoyed watching from afar as very intelligent and very batty heretics helped refine it into something very much the same and yet so much more.

I don't have much to add, except that I have stopped taking any of the origin fairytale stories, with their specific characters, literally and generally interpret them as relating, very foggily, to clashes between tribes of peoples/creatures and their cultural practices. I believe that most of the stories relating to the Night Fort are conveying the sacrificial practices of First Men who had adopted many cultural aspects from the Others.

I believe the Stark's were the unhappy architects of a backed-into-a-corner armistice with the Others (last hero) and this is why they are doomed to a cold hell. The Others were tired of slowly losing to humans and had gone full nuclear with armies of the dead. The Others' would rest their angry Greenseers, spirits from hewn Weirwoods, and armies of the dead, in return for a Wall and magical ammo (aka sacrifices). The Starks would be given magical assistance (Dire Wolves, ect) to obtain and retain political hegemony and enforce the armistice. They would be the high priests of the required sacrifices and wardens of the Wall in service of keeping the armistice. They would also be given dragonglass periodically to signify a contractual renewal between the Others and the realms of men. They would in return ensure a regular buffet of sacrifices.

The other human survivors at the time might have even been in favor of the deal. The Lords right to the first night takes on a whole new shade of evil when you consider it was most likely a tool to produce sacrifices. That is why Jon "Snow" is an evil name. He is marked as a sacrifice. I should mention here that the nature of the sacrifice might not be a gruesome death, but a shove through the Black Gate, to restock a manageable herd of humans (wildings) they could tap for magical juice or use as wright cannon fodder.

I would suggest that the stories of Mad Axe, the Rat Cook, and the Prentice Boys in Chains are all ultimately stories surrounding the true nature of the Night Fort...that of sacrifice to the Others. The Rat Cook is ultimately forced to consume his own children, much like Craster does by sacrificing his sons.

When a new wave of people, the Andals, slowly conquered and assimilated in a glacial push across Westeros they eventually pushed out some highly incompatible cultural practices. They repurposed the Night's Watch and reworded the oath to suite their world view and belief system. This likely occurred over a long time period, but it would seem at some point along the way, maybe as recent as good Queen Alysanne, all the active 'Black Gate' sacrifices were stopped and replaced with voluntary life service (another form of sacrifice). I do believe sometime early in the Andal migration, that a Stark in Winterfell stabbed his relative the Night's King in the back. In a time of changing cultural mores it became politically expediate to distance themselves from any common ground with the Others. 

One thing I'm sure of is that I have holes in these beliefs. I felt compelled to contribute the core elements of my gut feeling, from what I’ve gleaned from all the strongly documented theories over the years, just this once. I'll be content to read theories for another 10 years.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Melifeather said:

I quite understand why you would write without vowels. The ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah text spells God's name as YHWH which was revealed to them by Moses, but it is too holy to be spoken.

I do know about that, I am not using vowels since first Quran didn't had vowels and placing them afterwards can alter the meaning of the words, that's what I want to prevent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Precioushobbits said:

When I read this post10 years ago, I thought owwww shit...he is right...and I wasn't happy about it. However, I couldn't escape that it mostly fit. It was clear from the tone of the series and how it artfully trudged through all the faults of humanity, realpolitik, unglamorous deaths, and brutalities of war that it was pointing to a tragic or at least melancholy ending. I believe one of the series primary themes, beyond entertainment, is that compromise should not be scorned. Both compromise with other tribes and compromise with our own values, goals and ambitions. I still agree with the central tenants of this theory today and have enjoyed watching from afar as very intelligent and very batty heretics helped refine it into something very much the same and yet so much more.

I don't have much to add, except that I have stopped taking any of the origin fairytale stories, with their specific characters, literally and generally interpret them as relating, very foggily, to clashes between tribes of peoples/creatures and their cultural practices. I believe that most of the stories relating to the Night Fort are conveying the sacrificial practices of First Men who had adopted many cultural aspects from the Others.

I believe the Stark's were the unhappy architects of a backed-into-a-corner armistice with the Others (last hero) and this is why they are doomed to a cold hell. The Others were tired of slowly losing to humans and had gone full nuclear with armies of the dead. The Others' would rest their angry Greenseers, spirits from hewn Weirwoods, and armies of the dead, in return for a Wall and magical ammo (aka sacrifices). The Starks would be given magical assistance (Dire Wolves, ect) to obtain and retain political hegemony and enforce the armistice. They would be the high priests of the required sacrifices and wardens of the Wall in service of keeping the armistice. They would also be given dragonglass periodically to signify a contractual renewal between the Others and the realms of men. They would in return ensure a regular buffet of sacrifices.

The other human survivors at the time might have even been in favor of the deal. The Lords right to the first night takes on a whole new shade of evil when you consider it was most likely a tool to produce sacrifices. That is why Jon "Snow" is an evil name. He is marked as a sacrifice. I should mention here that the nature of the sacrifice might not be a gruesome death, but a shove through the Black Gate, to restock a manageable herd of humans (wildings) they could tap for magical juice or use as wright cannon fodder.

I would suggest that the stories of Mad Axe, the Rat Cook, and the Prentice Boys in Chains are all ultimately stories surrounding the true nature of the Night Fort...that of sacrifice to the Others. The Rat Cook is ultimately forced to consume his own children, much like Craster does by sacrificing his sons.

When a new wave of people, the Andals, slowly conquered and assimilated in a glacial push across Westeros they eventually pushed out some highly incompatible cultural practices. They repurposed the Night's Watch and reworded the oath to suite their world view and belief system. This likely occurred over a long time period, but it would seem at some point along the way, maybe as recent as good Queen Alysanne, all the active 'Black Gate' sacrifices were stopped and replaced with voluntary life service (another form of sacrifice). I do believe sometime early in the Andal migration, that a Stark in Winterfell stabbed his relative the Night's King in the back. In a time of changing cultural mores it became politically expediate to distance themselves from any common ground with the Others. 

One thing I'm sure of is that I have holes in these beliefs. I felt compelled to contribute the core elements of my gut feeling, from what I’ve gleaned from all the strongly documented theories over the years, just this once. I'll be content to read theories for another 10 years.

 

 

 

Good to hear from you and hopefully not another ten years before your next post :commie:

I think the Nights King Story is tremendously important here, not as the origin story for the pantomime villain in the Mummers Farce, but in pointing to the gaps and contradictions in what we actually know about the Nights Watch. And this isn't just readers grumbling. Sam Tarly specifically draws attention to this, turning it into a [major?] plot device. The Watch are supposedly charged, and have been charged for thousands of years with manning the Wall in order to defend the realms of men from the Others. But why then do they not remember or record anything about it? Too long ago, no written records from way back when. Perhaps, but why then raise the issue in text if not setting the stage for revelations to come, revelations which are going to tell a very different story 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Precioushobbits said:

One thing I'm sure of is that I have holes in these beliefs. I felt compelled to contribute the core elements of my gut feeling, from what I’ve gleaned from all the strongly documented theories over the years, just this once. I'll be content to read theories for another 10 years.

OK, I love it and as always, I reserve the right to change my mind at any time.  I've changed my mind... or at least had my mind re-focused.  I'll also admit to casting about and driving the bat-mobile on occasion.  Please don't be a stranger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Precioushobbits said:

When a new wave of people, the Andals, slowly conquered and assimilated in a glacial push across Westeros they eventually pushed out some highly incompatible cultural practices. They repurposed the Night's Watch and reworded the oath to suite their world view and belief system.

There is a lot of interesting stuff to discuss in your post.  In general, I agree that the Andalization of Westeros and the North occured in society over a period of time.  However, I'm still of the opinion that there was a sudden change in the Watch on the arrival of 5 kings and the remnants of their armies at the Wall.  I think this includes changing the oath after the Night King is deposed.  Specifically to include taking no wives or fathering children. 

I've wondered why the Stark in Winterfell turned coat and stabbed the Night King in the back.  Potentially there was no choice given a superior force and numbers at the Wall.  So I would add kneeling to no king to the mix.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

There is a lot of interesting stuff to discuss in your post.  In general, I agree that the Andalization of Westeros and the North occured in society over a period of time.  However, I'm still of the opinion that there was a sudden change in the Watch on the arrival of 5 kings and the remnants of their armies at the Wall.  I think this includes changing the oath after the Night King is deposed.  Specifically to include taking no wives or fathering children. 

I've wondered why the Stark in Winterfell turned coat and stabbed the Night King in the back.  Potentially there was no choice given a superior force and numbers at the Wall.  So I would add kneeling to no king to the mix.

 

 

I'm not sure we can take it as canon, but I do recall a type of historical background story that can be found on the Game of Thrones DVDs regarding how the wildlings came to be on the north side of the Wall. They talked of their king or lord dying and his son, the heir apparent, as not being like his dead father, and their unwillingness to bend their knee to him. I believe this is the same video.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LynnS said:

There is a lot of interesting stuff to discuss in your post.  In general, I agree that the Andalization of Westeros and the North occured in society over a period of time.  However, I'm still of the opinion that there was a sudden change in the Watch on the arrival of 5 kings and the remnants of their armies at the Wall.  I think this includes changing the oath after the Night King is deposed.  Specifically to include taking no wives or fathering children. 

I've wondered why the Stark in Winterfell turned coat and stabbed the Night King in the back.  Potentially there was no choice given a superior force and numbers at the Wall.  So I would add kneeling to no king to the mix.

 

 

I think that this is one of the wider issues at the heart of heresy; which as Precioushobbits says is about not taking the origin stories literally, but looking at what's behind them and re-interpreting them to try and sort out the contradictions, or rather re-interpret them in the light of those contradictions. 

In this case, was the Nights King who features in Old Nan's story an outlier, or does the story really concern the change from one regime to another, and yes it may well be connected with the arrival of the Andals.

Another way of looking at it is to consider the history of Westeros [or the book of invasions] and how the events in the north mesh with the arrivals in the south and east 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

I think that this is one of the wider issues at the heart of heresy; which as Precioushobbits says is about not taking the origin stories literally, but looking at what's behind them and re-interpreting them to try and sort out the contradictions, or rather re-interpret them in the light of those contradictions. 

What do we really know about the Watch before the arrival of the Andals.  What was their number?  A hundred pieces of obsidian could reflect the number of houses that agreed to the original pact and/or the number of brothers in the Watch.  Was that a static number with replacements required only when a member dies?

If the Watch was observing the condition of the pact until the Night King was deposed, why would they need to increase their number  Why would they need to build additional forts?  Any stories we have about the Watch start with the Night King and Nightfort.  Then we have the story of Nymeria sending five kings to the Wall.  These seem to be the oldest stories.

Later we learn about the Black Gate and it's Gatekeeper Coldhands.  This was not a feature of any other fort and any record of it was purged along with any recorded history of the Night King.  We know from Coldhands that the oath was altered (long ago) and that Coldhands was killed then ensorceled. 

The Gate itself an entryway to an underground tunnel or cave system hidden with a glamor with an exit hidden somewhere beyond the Wall.

What was the original relationship between the wildlings and the Watch?  Was the tribute, the blood sacrifice forced or were they like Craster; right with the gods?  Did wildling tribes contribute members to the Watch;  or 'prentice boys to be tested as greenseers?

The story of the Thing that Comes in the Night to the 'prentice boys sounds something that comes in disguise in their dreams. Did they die because they fell or leapt from the Wall in an attempt to fly?  What becomes those who fail the test?

Quote

 

A Game of Thrones - Bran III

Because winter is coming.

Bran looked at the crow on his shoulder, and the crow looked back. It had three eyes, and the third eye was full of a terrible knowledge. Bran looked down. There was nothing below him now but snow and cold and death, a frozen wasteland where jagged blue-white spires of ice waited to embrace him. They flew up at him like spears. He saw the bones of a thousand other dreamers impaled upon their points. He was desperately afraid.

 

What becomes of a soul impaled by ice?

Quote

 

A Storm of Swords - Bran IV

It wasn't the sentinels, he knew. The sentinels never left the Wall. But there might be other ghosts in the Nightfort, ones even more terrible. He remembered what Old Nan had said of Mad Axe, how he took his boots off and prowled the castle halls barefoot in the dark, with never a sound to tell you where he was except for the drops of blood that fell from his axe and his elbows and the end of his wet red beard. Or maybe it wasn't Mad Axe at all, maybe it was the thing that came in the night. The 'prentice boys all saw it, Old Nan said, but afterward when they told their Lord Commander every description had been different. And three died within the year, and the fourth went mad, and a hundred years later when the thing had come again, the 'prentice boys were seen shambling along behind it, all in chains.

 

If the Starks were given the magic juice that produces wargs and greenseers;  how do the Wildlings come by it in their population unless the Starks are responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of questions to consider, but perhaps simple answers to some if we think sensibly rather than literally.

The Watch at the present time appear to know nothing of their history. Mormont complained that they had forgotten. Sam Tarly complained that he couldn't find anything in the archives. There are plausible reasons for both of course but the fact GRRM draws attention to them suggests that he isn't ready to explain things.

OK scroll back in history/legend

The Nights Watch supposedly defeated the Others in the Battle for the Dawn and have been building and Guarding the Wall ever since, but seemingly they know nothing about the battle or how it was won. Then there is the Night's King. Supposedly he was the 13th Lord Commander, his Queen is strongly implied to have been an Other and after he'd been overthrown it was found that they and their men had been sacrificing to the Others.

The sensible explanation is that there was an Old Watch who interacted with the Others, ie; the Children and the White Walkers back in the day, but were eventually replaced by a New Watch hostile to the Others. They, the New Watch, know nothing about what came before because they overthrew and almost certainly killed everybody belonging to the Old [original] Watch. It is even possible that the overthrow of the Night's King and the Battle for the Dawn were one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Why would the Stark in Winterfell and Joramun put a stop to all of that unless the COTF had deployed the nuclear option.  And why would they do that?

Because "Men forget. Only the trees remember"

In my headcanon the proto-Starks were part of the tribes that triggered the doom beyond-the-wall. The COTF helped with containing the effects and the Starks were tasked with rooting out the magic that created the doom from the lands south of The Wall . They were exiled stone lords like the targs and several of the main characters in the books (Catelyn, Arya, Tyrion, Sansa, JonCon, Rickon). But men forget...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Why would the Stark in Winterfell and Joramun put a stop to all of that unless the COTF had deployed the nuclear option.  And why would they do that?

The "nuclear option" doesn't necessarily follow. The pressure may have come from the Andals - hence the betrayals by Kings. As Tucu says men forget... and sometimes memories can be very selective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Lots of questions to consider, but perhaps simple answers to some if we think sensibly rather than literally.

I think there are kernels of truth dressed up in these horror stories.  Although I question the Rat Cook story.  A giant white rat that devours it's own offspring sounds like a description of the Black Gate.  Who was the Andal King and was he one of the kings sent to the Wall by Nymeria? Who was King Sherrit for that matter?  

Quote

 

A Storm of Swords - Bran IV

Bran wasn't so certain. The Nightfort had figured in some of Old Nan's scariest stories. It was here that Night's King had reigned, before his name was wiped from the memory of man. This was where the Rat Cook had served the Andal king his prince-and-bacon pie, where the seventy-nine sentinels stood their watch, where brave young Danny Flint had been raped and murdered. This was the castle where King Sherrit had called down his curse on the Andals of old, where the 'prentice boys had faced the thing that came in the night, where blind Symeon Star-Eyes had seen the hellhounds fighting. Mad Axe had once walked these yards and climbed these towers, butchering his brothers in the dark.

 

 That King Sherrit called down a curse on the Andals of old suggests that he was not an Andal king.

Sherritt Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms (houseofnames.com)

Was the story of the rat cook used as justification for overthrowing the Nightfort?  Did the cook really serve prince and bacon pie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

In my headcanon the proto-Starks were part of the tribes that triggered the doom beyond-the-wall. The COTF helped with containing the effects and the Starks were tasked with rooting out the magic that created the doom from the lands south of The Wall . They were exiled stone lords like the targs and several of the main characters in the books (Catelyn, Arya, Tyrion, Sansa, JonCon, Rickon). But men forget..

I don't understand your head canon/  Can you say some more about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Melifeather said:

I'm not sure we can take it as canon, but I do recall a type of historical background story that can be found on the Game of Thrones DVDs regarding how the wildlings came to be on the north side of the Wall. They talked of their king or lord dying and his son, the heir apparent, as not being like his dead father, and their unwillingness to bend their knee to him. I believe this is the same video.

Thanks.  Potentially, I think the free folk were able to move beyond the Wall and back without any opposition from the Watch.  I think it wasn't until forts were established at Eastwatch and Westwatch by the Andals that they became imprisoned beyond the Wall.  My guess is that they were captured and used for slave labour in the construction of the Wall and many died in that servitude.  Which might explain Ygritte's comment that the Wall is made of (wildling) blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The "nuclear option" doesn't necessarily follow. The pressure may have come from the Andals - hence the betrayals by Kings. As Tucu says men forget... and sometimes memories can be very selective

Well we have the horn of Joramun/winter.  Perhaps obsidian wasn't the only weapon provided by the COTF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LynnS said:

I think there are kernels of truth dressed up in these horror stories.  Although I question the Rat Cook story.  A giant white rat that devours it's own offspring sounds like a description of the Black Gate.  Who was the Andal King and was he one of the kings sent to the Wall by Nymeria? Who was King Sherrit for that matter?  

 That King Sherrit called down a curse on the Andals of old suggests that he was not an Andal king.

Sherritt Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms (houseofnames.com)

Was the story of the rat cook used as justification for overthrowing the Nightfort?  Did the cook really serve prince and bacon pie?

Well, if Stannis is reprising the role of King Sherrit, then he doesn't necessarily have to be a king from the north. He just used the Nightfort as his seat while he made war on the Andals - just like what Stannis is doing. He believes he's Robert's rightful heir since Cersei's children were fathered by Jaime. His war is with the current "Andal administration". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...