Notifications
Clear all

Initiation in the Æon of the Child - J. Daniel Gunther  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 104
14/03/2009 12:52 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I just found on the Amazon Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey - by J. Daniel Gunther

http://www.amazon.com/Initiation-Aeon-Child-Inward-Journey/dp/089254145 8"> http://www.amazon.com/Initiation-Aeon-Child-Inward-Journey/dp/0892541458

I didn't read this. I was not able to find any review on the net. Ok, just currious to hear opinions from the people who read this. Thank you in advance.

Love is the law, love under will.

B.


Quote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 648
14/03/2009 1:05 am  

It did'nt came out yet, we shall have to wait a little bit longer for that one.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2009 3:22 pm  

93

I ordered this from Amazon also. When I placed the order it hadnt as yet been released. Now the status has been updated to "not in stock" - and I have received a mail from amazon asking me if I want to keep the order or cancel it.

I therefore assume there were either issues geting it published on time or the first run sold out before they got to my order.

Either way I suspect we may have a wait on our hands.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
16/03/2009 8:41 pm  

No, I suspect that Ibis hasn't gone to press with it yet, I've had waits of several months for a couple of their books I'd pre-ordered in the past... Peterson's edition of `The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses' was delayed for five or six months, I recall distinctly!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 12:09 pm  

James Wasserman refers to this book in his introduction to Richard Kaczynski's Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley.
In it he states "I highly recommmend J. Daniel Gunther's Initiation in the Aeon of the Child: The Inward Journey which in my opnion the most important doctrinal contribution since Crowley's death." So I think it will definately be a book to watch for.

Wajii


ReplyQuote
Sodeth
(@sodeth)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 6
29/03/2009 5:12 am  

For those not aware of it, Weiser Antiquarian is selling a small number of signed copies of this book. It looks very interesting, so I can't wait for it!

Sodeth


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2009 6:44 pm  

93,

I received notification from amazon that my copy shipped on Friday. So look forward to receiving it on Monday.

Will probably be a while before I get to it though as Im still wading through the A.'.A.'. reading list - im half way through AC's collected works.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 648
29/03/2009 8:04 pm  

I also think this is a book of the utmost importance, but I just wish to read some other for me important works, first, like say for example Crowleys AA reading-list.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2009 7:15 am  

Moderator's Note: Abusive and possibly libellous remarks removed. Future posts of this nature will result in the closure of your account, Horrificus.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2009 10:13 am  

93

Your zealot-comments convinced me to order immediately the book - thank you for the inputs! Salt-junkies unite!

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2009 1:25 am  

My copy arrived today. At first glance, it looks pretty interesting. Lots of material that seems to broaden modern-day Thelema beyond the "standard stuff" ... while attempting to stay true to Crowley's intent and tradition.

I'll try to post a more substantial review in a few days.

Steve


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/04/2009 2:53 pm  

My initial impressions to the book were: wow, just WOW!

The formulaes of initiation it addresses are some of the most deep and penetrative work I have seen. This is a contribution that I have longed for within our community. This is a work that is rooted in our first principles and consequently remains safely rooted in our doctrines while at the same time advancing them to a level that I believe very few thought possible.

I can see why the O.H.O. recomended that this have a place in the curricula of both A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. and consider it the single most important post-Crowley contribution to our teachings and formulas.

A more thorough review will come later, but I advise everyone who are interested in the Law of Thelema and it's formulaes for initiation to buy and study and work with this book.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2009 3:53 pm  

I can see why the O.H.O. recomended that this have a place in the curricula of both A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. and consider it the single most important post-Crowley contribution to our teachings and formulas.

Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/04/2009 4:01 pm  
"zain" wrote:
Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.

I can only what I consider it to be and quite frankly I do think it is the most important contribution to our doctrines post-Crowley. Others may be of an different opinnion of course and I am fine with that. In fact I don't find anything divisive about it at all, it is merely an reflection of my opinnion and exemplifies how imporant I think this book is and where it stands in relation to other important contributions to our doctrines post-Crowley.

But you can be sure, a review is forthcoming after Easter vacation 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2009 4:15 pm  
"zain" wrote:

I can see why the O.H.O. recomended that this have a place in the curricula of both A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. and consider it the single most important post-Crowley contribution to our teachings and formulas.

Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.

How is one person's opinion of a book divisive, Zain? Whom does it divide and how?


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
01/04/2009 5:04 pm  
"zain" wrote:

I can see why the O.H.O. recomended that this have a place in the curricula of both A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. and consider it the single most important post-Crowley contribution to our teachings and formulas.

Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.

93,

How is that divisive in the least?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
01/04/2009 6:00 pm  

I can hardly wait for this book. It looks excellent!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
01/04/2009 7:34 pm  
"zain" wrote:
Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.

What a strange post, zain. I don't see any way in which Patriarch156's comment could be seen as either "arrogant" or "divisive"... And he's already said that he'll be writing a review, even though there's no need for him to "back up" his opinion.

Odd...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2009 9:03 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"zain" wrote:
Patriarch 156 that is an incredibly arrogant and divisive statement you gave there. I look forward to your comprehensive review of Gunther's book to back up that up.

What a strange post, zain. I don't see any way in which Patriarch156's comment could be seen as either "arrogant" or "divisive"... And he's already said that he'll be writing a review, even though there's no need for him to "back up" his opinion.

Odd...

Certainty is sometimes mistaken for arrogance Paul. But not with you thank your HGA. Not an instruction but a reverence... 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 12:26 am  

Just notified that my copy should ship by Monday. I will join the chorus and post my intial impression and then when I complete my reading.

wajii


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 12:31 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
What a strange post, zain. I don't see any way in which Patriarch156's comment could be seen as either "arrogant" or "divisive"... And he's already said that he'll be writing a review, even though there's no need for him to "back up" his opinion.

Odd...

Zain's comments are understandable if one knows the background. Just seems our energies could be devoted to more important things.

I look forward to reading in-depth and substantial reviews of JDG's book.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 12:40 am  
"tai" wrote:
Zain's comments are understandable if one knows the background. Just seems our energies could be devoted to more important things.

The background of what, tai?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 1:02 am  

Lashtal.com is a non-partisan forum 😉


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
02/04/2009 1:14 am  
"tai" wrote:
Lashtal.com is a non-partisan forum 😉

I think I preferred it when smilies were enabled! This just looks kind of "sinister"!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 1:19 am  

Yes I agree. Remind me never to use smilies again.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 1:31 am  
"tai" wrote:
Lashtal.com is a non-partisan forum

Yes, exactly so.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
02/04/2009 3:10 am  
"tai" wrote:
Just seems our energies could be devoted to more important things.

It seems to me that if you worried more about how your own energies were devoted and less about others, that you would have a bigger chance of cultivating a myriad different points of views and consequently increase the chance sof creating an non-partisan (in the sense that it is not directed by any single or in concert minority or majority) forum for discussion.

I look forward to reading in-depth and substantial reviews of JDG's book.

It may come sooner than you think. The above initial impression was written after reading half the book and was merely meant to convey my excitement and initial reactions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 4:54 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
It seems to me that if you worried more about how your own energies were devoted and less about others, that you would have a bigger chance of cultivating a myriad different points of views and consequently increase the chance sof creating an non-partisan (in the sense that it is not directed by any single or in concert minority or majority) forum for discussion.

Patriarch156 - by “energies” I was not referring to your enthusiasm for the book but comments in this thread that came off as partisan. You would need to know the background I was referring to.

Maybe something was lost in translation, but I do not see the need for "a bigger chance to cultivate" myriad points of views to "increase the chance of creating" a non-partisan forum. Lashtal.com is non-partisan and its only a question of whether members respect those guidelines, and people are different as reflected in their views.

If you need clarification feel free to contact me by PM.

Back on-topic.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
02/04/2009 5:56 am  

There is no need for clarification, through PM or otherwise, since as far as I know you are neither the owner nor moderator on this forum. I have always been willing to be moderated and respect the decisions of what I consider to be one of the most sensible moderators on the internet, the owner of LAShTAL and his duly appointed assistants.

If I have acted without my knowledge outside the parameters of the guidelines of the site I trust that Paul or his assistant who would be identified as such, would correct me on this. At this point I would apologize and correct my participation accordingly so that it would be within the guidelines of the forum.

That being said I am not aware of having acted outside the guidelines of the forum. A non-partisan forum is reflected in that it does not favor any particular point of view by discrimination (within the limits of the stated goals of the forum), not in that it's participants is automagically bound to take the middle ground on every issue.

That way if someone feels that something is inaccurate, or disagree, they can contribute their own particular but informed (as per the guidelines) point of view.

But you are right, this is off topic (though not one of my raising), and as such this will be my last contribution to this particular topic in this thread.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
02/04/2009 5:57 am  

I don't want to make things even more garbled, but I don't see a conflict between Lashtal being non-partisan site and some member being so. In other words, if I understand things correctly, there should be no problem if some or all of us partizans of one cause or another: Lashtal retains its non-partisanship by providing an open forum for all of us, despite our personal preferences, as long as we are able to be civil about them. Maybe I did not quite understand what was / is going on, but my perception was that tai considered Patriarch156's post about DJG's book as a) partizan and b) as conflicting Lashtal's impartiality, and I don't see it that way for reasons just mentioned.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 6:41 am  

Yes its becoming even more garbled. Please drop this off-topic issue and move on. I will clarify with Patriarch156 by pm.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 6:26 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
My initial impressions to the book were: wow, just WOW!

The formulaes of initiation it addresses are some of the most deep and penetrative work I have seen. This is a contribution that I have longed for within our community. This is a work that is rooted in our first principles and consequently remains safely rooted in our doctrines while at the same time advancing them to a level that I believe very few thought possible.

I can see why the O.H.O. recomended that this have a place in the curricula of both A.'.A.'. and O.T.O. and consider it the single most important post-Crowley contribution to our teachings and formulas.

A more thorough review will come later, but I advise everyone who are interested in the Law of Thelema and it's formulaes for initiation to buy and study and work with this book.

Well, you just sold me on it Kjetil, was looking forward to it before but now I will definitely not put it off when I have the cash.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/04/2009 6:35 pm  

Hopefully we can discuss the book without the distraction of lineage issues. Perhaps that depends upon the book, and my copy has yet to arrive. I'm looking forward to reading the reviews of those who already have it in hand.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
02/04/2009 11:12 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I consider to be one of the most sensible moderators on the internet, the owner of LAShTAL and his duly appointed assistants.

I currently have no appointed assistants.

I would remind members that I will welcome and encourage posts relating to the topic itself.

Posts that stray from the topic will be deleted.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
03/04/2009 9:46 am  

Here is my review of the book: http://thykaaba.livejournal.com/3842.html


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/04/2009 11:39 am  

"This is in fact the formula of our Magick; we insist that all acts must be equal; that existence asserts the right to exist; that unless evil is a mere term expressing some relation of haphazard hostility between forces equally self-justified, the universe is as inexplicable and impossible as uncompensated action; that the orgies of Bacchus and Pan are no less sacramental than the Masses of Jesus; that the scars of syphilis are sacred and worthy of honour as much as the wounds of the martyrs of Mary.

It should be unnecessary to insist that the above ideas apply only to the Absolute. Toothache is still painful, and deceit degrading, to a man, relatively to his situation in the world of illusion; he does his Will by avoiding them. But the existence of "Evil" is fatal to philosophy so long as it is supposed to be independent of conditions; and to accustom the mind to "make no difference" between any two ideas6 as such is to emancipate it from the thralldom of terror.

We affirm on our altars our faith in ourself and our wills, our love of all aspects of the Absolute All." - Crowley

There is a lot of danger in the above doctrine if it is mistaken. I hope that this new book identifies the absolute to the relative areas of initiation in a way that both clarifies and moves the danger. What's your opinion on this Patriarch156?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/04/2009 6:33 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Here is my review of the book: http://thykaaba.livejournal.com/3842.html

Thanks for posting that. Some questions on the book:

1. The opening of Liber Reguli states “Animadversion towards the Aeon”. What is the explanation of that phrase?

2. Can you describe in more detail the rudimentary QBLH set out by JDG? Does he ascribe new attributions on sephiroths or hint at a complete reconfiguration of the order of the sephiroths?

3. What is the correct attitude for aspirants to greet problems that arise?


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
03/04/2009 6:47 pm  

I am tempted to tell you to buy and read the book as the book adresses these so much better than I can do. But with that as a warning, here is my understanding of how the book adresses these questions.

"tai" wrote:
1. The opening of Liber Reguli states “Animadversion towards the Aeon”. What is the explanation of that phrase?

Animadversion means adverse criticism and the statement means that we are to turn on it's head when reorienting ourselves towards the New Aeon.

2. Can you describe in more detail the rudimentary QBLH set out by JDG? Does he ascribe new attributions on sephiroths or hint at a complete reconfiguration of the order of the sephiroths?

No new attributions or sephiroths or reconfiguration of the same. What he does is evolve the cosmology of Thelema, particular in the sense that it goes inwards rather than upwards, which AC himself attempted to address in some of his reconfigurations of the tree, in particular figure 28 in the tables and figures appendix of Liber ABA. Gunther applies this to Liber Trigrammaton etc. It is not a QBLH nor was it presented as such but it has the building stones of one such rudimentary one in the future.

3. What is the correct attitude for aspirants to greet problems that arise?

Keep your focus on the work at hand (I am oversimplifying a bit but I am sure you get the picture).


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
03/04/2009 6:54 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
There is a lot of danger in the above doctrine if it is mistaken. I hope that this new book identifies the absolute to the relative areas of initiation in a way that both clarifies and moves the danger. What's your opinion on this Patriarch156?

I have been contemplating your question and I am still not sure that I am understanding it properly. That is I do understand Crowley's point, which he adressed through his reinvention of the concepts Yama and Niyama to regulate the dealings of men with themselves and each other. The book does not touch on this as it is not it's main focus, dealing as it does with the formulaes rather than the ethical implications of Initiation. That probably did not answer your question though 🙂


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
03/04/2009 9:10 pm  

I don't want to presume or impose, but just as an opinion, I think that the import of Crowley's quote is that Evil does not have independent absolute existence, but that it is contingent on conditions. My understanding is that he is gesturing away from metaphysical conceptions that are dualistic (God and Devil, etc.). One might perceive a possible contradiction between this and 0=2 formula, but in the latter case, the two in question are not antagonistic but complementary (as Yin and Yang, Shiva and Shakti, Nuit and Hadit, etc.). I think that Crowley was rather clear in the quote that evil and pain and deceit and degradation do exist (so he was not being naive to negate the reality of such things and experiences), and that what he is rejecting is a postulation of Evil as a metaphysical absolute independent of conditions. I hope I was being clear.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
03/04/2009 10:22 pm  

Pertaining to this topic:

http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Initiation_in_the_Aeon_of_the_Child

News item submitted, but I thought those of you active in this thread might be keen to hear about this ASAP.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/04/2009 10:36 pm  

Well - there is no such thing as absolute evil, but then again... (putting this as delicately and opaqely as possible) the hoodwinking serves a purpose. It's not as if the candidate knows you know what, so to 'go forth' as some people do and look for trouble seems to mistake..you know.

Bother.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/04/2009 1:26 am  

Fair enough.
I hope the book helps.
I can't stand the hood wink anymore.
Every word I utter is a further illusion,
another snare.
I rid myself of the curse of speech,
and, handing my trinkets to my exemplar,
retreat into silence.
IAF SABAF.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/04/2009 7:27 am  

As you Will.

Btw - you assumed I'd answered.

Choose .... someone else. And that wasn't an answer either. Farewell.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
08/04/2009 6:05 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
Pertaining to this topic:

http://sekhetmaat.com/wiki/Initiation_in_the_Aeon_of_the_Child

News item submitted, but I thought those of you active in this thread might be keen to hear about this ASAP.

93,

Also Ive started to write an extensive review, the first part of which can be found here: http://burnurl.com/QHRryA

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Montvid
(@montvid)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 36
08/04/2009 7:31 pm  

IAO131, a good review. I miss only your arguments, explanation of the N.O.X. signs. I understand that you didn't want to overstrech the review but it would be enlightening to explain not only L.V.X but N.O.X. too. I guess it could be just me interested in your opinion. 🙂 Waiting for pt. 3!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/04/2009 8:15 pm  

Nice detailed review, but Athanasius Kircher did not create the Tree of Life. His tree was based on Moses Cordovero. Older images of the Tree dating to 13th and 12th century are found here:

http://www.agdei.com/Universal%20Symbols2.html

(scroll down to bottom of page)

And that’s only what we know. I’m sure far older versions exist.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
09/04/2009 12:42 am  
"Montvid" wrote:
IAO131, a good review. I miss only your arguments, explanation of the N.O.X. signs. I understand that you didn't want to overstrech the review but it would be enlightening to explain not only L.V.X but N.O.X. too. I guess it could be just me interested in your opinion. 🙂 Waiting for pt. 3!

93,

My intention wasn't to explain the NOX signs but hold Gunther up to his own assertions (i.e. being self-consistent). The basic idea is that he says NOX and not LVX is the formula of the New Aeon but then repeatedly cites places where Light and Darkness, LVX and NOX, are seen as complementary, etc. (Horus is both light and darkness and that which transcends them, for example).

I just posted part 3.

"tai" wrote:
Nice detailed review, but Athanasius Kircher did not create the Tree of Life. His tree was based on Moses Cordovero. Older images of the Tree dating to 13th and 12th century are found here:

http://www.agdei.com/Universal%20Symbols2.html

(scroll down to bottom of page)

And that’s only what we know. I’m sure far older versions exist.

Thanks. I know he didn't create the Tree of Life - there are definitely precedents - but the Tree we normally think of has its strong roots in Kircher (for example). The point was that the symbolism is not new or Thelemic in any way.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/04/2009 12:56 am  

In a footnote, Gunther writes:
"The scythe combines the crescent and the cross, the emblem of Saturn [Saturn symbol], hence the Great Mother." (p.25)

Perhaps it evaded Gunther's attention that Saturn was a male god... It is not immediately obvious why Saturn should immediately lead symbolically to "the Great Mother" (do not all symbols above the abyss contain their own opposites including the opposites of gender anyways?) This kind of brief Qabalistic explanation permeates this book and leaves more questions than answers, I think.

Crowley mapped Saturn onto Binah and therefore the scythe symbolizes the Great Mother. Whether this is true or not is another question, but JDG’s footnote is fairly clear.

Also Chokmah is a masculine principle and Binah is a feminine principle. So I do not think Crowley’s notion of “above the abyss” is meant to deny gender.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/04/2009 1:03 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
I know he didn't create the Tree of Life - there are definitely precedents - but the Tree we normally think of has its strong roots in Kircher (for example). The point was that the symbolism is not new or Thelemic in any way.

IAO131

Yes I agree the "Kircher" tree is probably the best known version.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: