Carrier review on Einhorn's 'Shift in Time'

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Since Paul does not know any Earthly, temporal details of Jesus of Nazareth's human life, and we only are privy to copies of copies of the original texts, then it is a rather simple matter for scribes to pre-pend Iesous in front of Christos in the few places that the name of Jesus is referred to by Paul.
What would be the need? You don't think Paul referred to Kyrios Iesus Christos? This would have been Lord Jesus Annointed, where "Jesus" is a Greek approximation of the Hebrew for "savior." St. Paul's central message is redemption by this Son of the Lord. Is there a reason to think he wouldn't have named Him "savior"?

You are the only one here doing so. Jerry was asking a question, with the underlying premise that SaulcumPaul was indeed a double agent.
Dear appendage of Spiderman's creator, what leads you to believe such things? I would never suspect Paul to be a Zealot unless he was preaching to the Zealots. He preached to an audience which was predominantly gentile and around the north (and mostly eastern) part of the Mediterranean, not to an audience that was predominantly even Jewish, and certainly not within their homeland.

I'm starting to suspect that you are onto my original intent. But you went along with the deception a good while. ;)
Why, I'm sure I'm just as confused as anyone :: twirls hair ::

The issue in the verse is a moot point. The Romans had long granted the Jews a UNIQUE exception to doing performing all the monkey games. We are talking about the core needs of the state and not superficial appearances.
The feds (USA) have long granted the Indians a unique exception so they can use peyote. Now let's see someone start throwing peyote parties in private homes (Paul's followers had no temples) of non-Indians and claiming that because they are doing it in the name of a fictitious "Chief [Cherokee word for 'savior'] Anointed" that they are also exempt, and then see how much of a "superficial appearance" law enforcement considers it to be. And peyote is not an executable offense, unlike refusal to worship the emperor

Or: On such a tumultuous occasion, who was counting?
I count two places where "the Egyptian" is mentioned, and the author in both cases is suspected to be the same person. Not that it makes that big of a deal, but it seems to me that the Egyptian could just as well be made up as historical

Or, in other words: the Romans didn't care who the people worshipped, as long as they paid their taxes.
By the fourth century, yes. During the time of St. Paul... :: raised eyebrow ::

That is, who was the Christ that Paul was preaching about -- according to Marcilla.
I can only hazard a guess, but seeing as his first letter is to the people of Thessaloniki, I figure it's not impossible this was the first church he started. If that is the case, then I think it's significant to look at what was going on in the spiritual life of the city in the first century.

Setting aside the imperial cult, the three main cults in 1st century Thessaloniki were Dionysus, Serapis, and Cabirus - Greek, (Greco-)Egyptian, and Thracian dying-and-rising godmen. Also trending was #Judaism. So I figure that Paul, a sort of "zealot" of a more general sort has is inspired by the Lord to have the idea to combine these social forces into a new Jewish dying-and-rising-godman cult. Viola! I give you Pauline Christianity!

I certainly don't think it's the only way it could happen, but is it difficult to imagine an intellectual Jew, burnt out on the status quo of the synagogue, inspired by the various mystery cults, and driven to innovate his own path?

Yes, Flavian (Pauline) Xianity had covert had, not overt aid.
Am I missing something? I thought Paul was ten years in Heaven before the Flavians came to power
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
What would be the need? You don't think Paul referred to Kyrios Iesus Christos? This would have been Lord Jesus Annointed, where "Jesus" is a Greek approximation of the Hebrew for "savior." St. Paul's central message is redemption by this Son of the Lord. Is there a reason to think he wouldn't have named Him "savior"?
I suppose that Iesous, the Greek solar term, would be convenient for Paul to purposely conflate in talking to radicalized Jews outside of Palestine that only know Greek. This would not likely be the case with the Jerusalem Church, who would obviously know that yeshua centrally (to themselves) means 'Yahweh saves'. But, Paul would not use the term Christos to them, but rather the word for messiah.

So, one needs to see who Paul was talking to at the time of each instance. Like whether Steve Bannon is talking to a Breitbart audience of nationalist zealots or whispering into Trump's ear like he did for the admirals and Goldman Sachs.
Dear appendage of Spiderman's creator, what leads you to believe such things? I would never suspect Paul to be a Zealot unless he was preaching to the Zealots. He preached to an audience which was predominantly gentile and around the north (and mostly eastern) part of the Mediterranean, not to an audience that was predominantly even Jewish, and certainly not within their homeland.
So why did he need to ask permission from the Jerusalem Church to deviate from the Mosaic Law? Why did he get in trouble so many times with Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere?
The feds (USA) have long granted the Indians a unique exception so they can use peyote. Now let's see someone start throwing peyote parties in private homes (Paul's followers had no temples) of non-Indians and claiming that because they are doing it in the name of a fictitious "Chief [Cherokee word for 'savior'] Anointed" that they are also exempt, and then see how much of a "superficial appearance" law enforcement considers it to be. And peyote is not an executable offense, unlike refusal to worship the emperor
So what? Besides, it's only a crime for the goyim not to worship the emperor.
By the fourth century, yes. During the time of St. Paul... :: raised eyebrow ::
You're taking liberties. The Romans, prior, would let you worship a fruitcake if you wanted. The only exception is that the granted the Jews an exception to worshiping the state pagan gods , because, being pragmatic, considered the Jews more dangerous by forcing them to do what was not a problem for most goyim.
So I figure that Paul, a sort of "zealot" of a more general sort has is inspired by the Lord to have the idea to combine these social forces into a new Jewish dying-and-rising-godman cult. Viola! I give you Pauline Christianity!

I certainly don't think it's the only way it could happen, but is it difficult to imagine an intellectual Jew, burnt out on the status quo of the synagogue, inspired by the various mystery cults, and driven to innovate his own path?
Right and the 'Lord' equals the Imperial Court.
And "driven to innovate" what the Imperial court innovated for him to proselytize.
Am I missing something? I thought Paul was ten years in Heaven before the Flavians came to power
So what? When was the fishy (Pythagorean) temple built at the Dewa fortress in today's Cheshire. Wasn't that when General Vespasian and his brother were there?
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
So, one needs to see who Paul was talking to at the time of each instance.
I quoted from the first chapter of 1 Thessalonians, widely regarded as Paul's earliest (surviving) writing. His audience would have been primarily people raised as Macedonian pagans, recently converted to Christianity. What reason would exist for him to use any but the Greek term Christos, particularly as he probably wanted to avoid confusion between his own Apollo/Dionysus/Serapis/Cabirus -inspired, Hellenistic, internally and spiritually -focused, affective g-dman, versus the David/Joshua/Daniel/Maccabee -inspired, Zionistic, externally and politically -focused, activist human leader

So why did he need to ask permission from the Jerusalem Church to deviate from the Mosaic Law? Why did he get in trouble so many times with Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere?
Before I respond to this question, could I ask for citations, so that we are certain to be speaking about the same events?

Besides, it's only a crime for the goyim not to worship the emperor.
Most of Paul's converts were goy

The only exception is that the granted the Jews an exception to worshiping the state pagan gods , because, being pragmatic, considered the Jews more dangerous by forcing them to do what was not a problem for most goyim.
Yes, the only exception was granted to the Jews, not to the Christians. Certainly not to the pre-Flavian Christians of Paul who were occasionally sentenced to torture and execution

And "driven to innovate" what the Imperial court innovated for him to proselytize.
I've never said it isn't possible for Rome to have innovated Pauline Christianity (I'm fully on-board that she's primarily responsible for the Julio-Augustan, Flavian, and Constantinian flavors), but I think that to say it's likely is tantamount to saying that because Sufism is a less political, more mystical form of Islam than the extremism of ISIS, which holds more interest for multicultural Westerners (see Whirling Dervishes on tour), therefore it must not be an authentic grassroots movement, but instead must have been created by some combination of US Army PsyOps, the State Department, the CIA, etc. Similarly, I find this theory possible, but more like stubble for Bill's shaver

When was the fishy (Pythagorean) temple built at the Dewa fortress in today's Cheshire. Wasn't that when General Vespasian and his brother were there?
Please enlighten those of us too ignorant to follow what you're saying
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I quoted from the first chapter of 1 Thessalonians, widely regarded as Paul's earliest (surviving) writing. His audience would have been primarily people raised as Macedonian pagans, recently converted to Christianity. What reason would exist for him to use any but the Greek term Christos, particularly as he probably wanted to avoid confusion between his own Apollo/Dionysus/Serapis/Cabirus -inspired, Hellenistic, internally and spiritually -focused, affective g-dman, versus the David/Joshua/Daniel/Maccabee -inspired, Zionistic, externally and politically -focused, activist human leader
Looks like you have some support:
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?posts/6871/
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Certainly not to the pre-Flavian Christians of Paul who were occasionally sentenced to torture and execution
Likely conflated with the radicals, as Laupot is claiming the Christiani to be messianic Jews, not Christians.

There is no reason for the Romans to kill there own spawn, unless they need to sacrifice one here and there "for the greater good", so to speak.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I've never said it isn't possible for Rome to have innovated Pauline Christianity (I'm fully on-board that she's primarily responsible for the Julio-Augustan, Flavian, and Constantinian flavors), but I think that to say it's likely is tantamount to saying that because Sufism is a less political, more mystical form of Islam than the extremism of ISIS, which holds more interest for multicultural Westerners (see Whirling Dervishes on tour), therefore it must not be an authentic grassroots movement, but instead must have been created by some combination of US Army PsyOps, the State Department, the CIA, etc. Similarly, I find this theory possible, but more like stubble for Bill's shaver
That famous phrase: "Phillipians 4:22 and Epiphroditus too".
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Please enlighten those of us too ignorant to follow what you're saying
The Vesica Piscis temple in the very center of the Dewa fortress, now underneath a car park pavement in Chester England.

Were the Christians fishy people or not? Would General Vespasian, in the time of his duty in Britain for Claudius, have likely been aware, at least, of such a unique feature in an otherwise typical Roman military fortress?

If Paul is such a Hellenist as you and I believe then he knew what this fish was about.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What reason would exist for him to use any but the Greek term Christos, particularly as he probably wanted to avoid confusion between his own Apollo/Dionysus/Serapis/Cabirus -inspired, Hellenistic, internally and spiritually -focused, affective g-dman, versus the David/Joshua/Daniel/Maccabee -inspired, Zionistic, externally and politically -focused, activist human leader
Richard's response is, perhaps, a little cryptic. The argument in Laupot's book is that the radical Jewish Zealots did indeed call themselves "Christiani" and they were indeed inspired by one or more messianic leaders. So, Paul's intention in calling himself also a Christian, although he was talking about an entirely different Messiah, was to create the maximum possible amount of confusion, strife and dissension.

Before I respond to this question, could I ask for citations, so that we are certain to be speaking about the same events?
I'd really encourage you to get a copy of Voskuilen & Sheldon, "Operation Messiah". They cover many examples. But, for the sake of discussion, see Acts 9:20-24. Immediately after his "conversion" experience, Paul starts preaching in the synagogue in Damascus. In response, the Jews promptly start conspiring to kill him.

Please enlighten those of us too ignorant to follow what you're saying
We learned about this from Ralph Ellis. Here's a paper online with a picture & discussion:

http://www.esotericquarterly.com/issues/EQ10/EQ1002/EQ100214-Ellis.pdf

The building is also discussed at Wikipedia. Apparently, the mainstream is completely mystified and befuddled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_Victrix#Elliptical_building
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
There is no reason for the Romans to kill there own spawn, unless they need to sacrifice one here and there "for the greater good", so to speak.
Richard, you're basing evidence on your conclusion, rather than the other way around

That famous phrase: "Phillipians 4:22 and Epiphroditus too".
If I was proselytizing Islam overseas, I can easily imagine why I might mention Muslims I knew who worked for the feds. I might even be tempted to imply that the president himself was a crypto-Muslim - I certainly wouldn't be the first! None of this would be the result of Islam being manufactured by the USA.

OTOH, if I was an intelligence or special operations asset on a mission to infiltrate Islamic extremism overseas, I would be strongly disinclined to mention my comings and goings with members of the government of the USA

So, Paul's intention in calling himself also a Christian, although he was talking about an entirely different Messiah, was to create the maximum possible amount of confusion, strife and dissension.
Admittedly, I haven't read the source material yet, but a well-respected reviewer called it "thin evidence"

I'd really encourage you to get a copy of Voskuilen & Sheldon, "Operation Messiah". They cover many examples. But, for the sake of discussion, see Acts 9:20-24.
Thank you for the reference. However, I must point out that as we all agree, Acts was written as a fiction, even if some was based on historical persons or even events.

Thank you also for the suggested reading, I've added it to the list. If I may suggest a project, what about a PF reading list? I think there could even be one way it's structured for the "already converted" and for the non-converted, it could be ranked by tiers. So first tier suggestions might be PhD-credentialed authors writing within their own field (Assmann?), second tier might be PhD-credentialed authors writing out of their field (Atchity?) or authors without PhDs with some other expertise in the field for which they are writing (Sabbah brothers?), third tier would be non-expert written books of significance (CM, which would probably be first tier for any of the converted who haven't read it yet), and fourth tier would be other titles of interest
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
If I was proselytizing Islam overseas, I can easily imagine why I might mention Muslims I knew who worked for the feds. I might even be tempted to imply that the president himself was a crypto-Muslim - I certainly wouldn't be the first! None of this would be the result of Islam being manufactured by the USA.

OTOH, if I was an intelligence or special operations asset on a mission to infiltrate Islamic extremism overseas, I would be strongly disinclined to mention my comings and goings with members of the government of the USA
According to our theory, Paul's activity was analogous to both. He was proselytizing for "Roman Christianity" among the general Mediterranean Hellenistic population, and he was also infiltrating the Jewish Zealots, and trying to conflate the two. This is a hint that Philippians was written to a Hellenistic congregation, and not to a synagogue of Zealots.

a well-respected reviewer called it "thin evidence"
"Well-respected", eh? Aw, shucks....

But, I think the evidence is pretty convincing that the messianic Jewish Zealots were a very distinct group from the early Paulist Christians and/or Roman Chrestians. My "thin evidence" remark was restricted to Laupot's view that the Jewish Zealots actually called themselves, and were generally known as, "Christiani". But regardless of what the sect was called, this group of Jewish Zealots definitely existed, and the Pauline Epistles and Acts consistently represent that Paul was trying to infiltrate and co-opt them.

The evidence does suggest that, by the time of Tacitus, the Romans had started to call the Zealots by the name of "Christiani". Laupot thinks that they were self-designated as such, while Richard (after reviewing Laupot's "thin evidence") thinks that this idea was contrived by the Romans. I'd say we can put it on our list of unsolved puzzles.

as we all agree, Acts was written as a fiction, even if some was based on historical persons or even events.
This is always the problem with this literature, trying to sort out fiction vs. reality. Would it help if there's corroborating evidence from the epistles, pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, and DSS? Voskuilen & Sheldon sort through all of it.

If I may suggest a project, what about a PF reading list?
Up until now it would've been a pretty short list, when it comes to Roman Origins theory. We're pretty excited to be discovering these additional resources.

first tier suggestions might be PhD-credentialed authors writing within their own field
Some people are very impressed by credentialism, to the point where they won't read anything else. Others feel the opposite, that professors are highly likely to be hopelessly corrupted by the compromises they make to get where they are. Even the best of them (like Eisenman and Price) are extremely timid in their conclusions. Free-lancers are generally much more fun to read.

Also, there are many topics subsumed under the Postflavian umbrella. We have "Roman Origins of Christianity" as an important focus, but we're also arguing that Judaism is, similarly, a synthetic imperialist construct. And the same for Islam. And, that the grand Pooh-Bahs of all these religions have often conspired together, being fully aware of the scam. (Or at least, to the extent that they figure out the fraudulent nature of the whole scheme, they become much more effective at continuing the Machiavellian maneuvering.) Finally, we have the most speculative branch of Postflaviana, trying to guess what Space Jesus we're going to be presented with for the next millennium. Each topic needs its own reading list.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
However, Wiki believes that the Vesica Piscis temple was built around AD 77, far too late for Vespasian's tour of duty in Britain.
Well, if true, that would make it untenable for Ellis's assertion that the Flavians exiled 'Jesus' there, unless rather later in Ellis's 'Jesus''s lifetime.

In any case the presence of the temple, with it's 12 stations (Get that Marcilla?) indicates the early presence of esoteric, Hellenistic proto-Xianity within the Roman milieu. As does the presence of the use of the equilateral cross within such as the Legio X Fretensis while in Palestine during the Jewish War. And the three centuries plus of the use of the Fish and Anchor, unique to the Flavians as its overt Roman initiators, and as found in the Xian Flavian catacombs of Rome. And the Fish and Anchor having its clear roots with Apollo, a prior solar 'Christ', and the Alpha and Omega.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard, you're basing evidence on your conclusion, rather than the other way around
Silly Martian, you're interpreting evidence from your conclusion (freighted by thousands of years of biased divine interpretations and mistletoe), rather than the other way around

If I was proselytizing Islam overseas, I can easily imagine why I might mention Muslims I knew who worked for the feds. I might even be tempted to imply that the president himself was a crypto-Muslim - I certainly wouldn't be the first! None of this would be the result of Islam being manufactured by the USA.

OTOH, if I was an intelligence or special operations asset on a mission to infiltrate Islamic extremism overseas, I would be strongly disinclined to mention my comings and goings with members of the government of the USA
And so now you agree that when Paul speaks to his field agents (his 'homies') that he may indeed use such court familiarities. I don't disagree with you here. And he must speak very carefully to audiences that have radicals in it. Unfortunately he didn't make Dictophone belts for us to allow us to know what he said, but its recorded that he made the Jews in the various synagogues rather mad. And then the Romans would come and save his arse every time.

The question is why do you keep dancing around the central issue? Namely, is the biblical messages and actions of Jesus and Paul (and Josephus) in line with the core needs of the imperium or not? Stop playing us for fools by asking about such as the need to 'honor the gods'. The elites long had their consistent reasons for creating their state concept of 'the gods' and as long as they got the end result is what really mattered (and still does).

One day Saul is out persecuting poor Jewish Taliban (aka Christiani wink-wink) for the Herodians, and the next day he's out leading field agents for the Roman's covert Chrestians (with their secret fishy symbol) as Paul. Some epiphany, probably just a different name on his paycheck.

One day ol Josephus der Maccabee is out negotiating for the release of Jewish priests with Nero (getting gifts from Poppaea) and the next he's getting accused by the Jewish Taliban of being duplicitous. Josephus says: "Gee I told you this war was a crap idea, what did you expect?"

And so now we are left with you seeming to say, "Richard and Jerry, I'll agree with most anything, but at the end of the Day, it is obvious to me that Paul and Josephus, at least, were really wonderful guys, inspired by the divine Creator (aka Dogod) and we should start from the unassailable premise, contrary to all the texts' behavioral evidence, that they selflessly acted in all of humanities's interest. And therefore I (and the royal we) should create the next New Song while continuing to honor them (and quietly their elite sponsors who are entitled to profit disproportionately forever and ever, Amen). The problem , dear Richard, is that the crafty Romans knew what Paul was up to and deviously co-opted his glorious efforts, nee hee hee hee.

If I have mischaracterized anything, please correct me.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
But, I think the evidence is pretty convincing that the messianic Jewish Zealots were a very distinct group from the early Paulist Christians and/or Roman Chrestians. My "thin evidence" remark was restricted to Laupot's view that the Jewish Zealots actually called themselves, and were generally known as, "Christiani". But regardless of what the sect was called, this group of Jewish Zealots definitely existed, and the Pauline Epistles and Acts consistently represent that Paul was trying to infiltrate and co-opt them.

The evidence does suggest that, by the time of Tacitus, the Romans had started to call the Zealots by the name of "Christiani". Laupot thinks that they were self-designated as such, while Richard (after reviewing Laupot's "thin evidence") thinks that this idea was contrived by the Romans. I'd say we can put it on our list of unsolved puzzles.
So far, in my opinion Laupot has made some strong arguments for his case that the Tacitus fragment is authentic. However, it seems to me that it may still be the case that the term Christiani may have been a name that outsiders applied to them (as desired by the imperium) and not a name used internally for themselves.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Also, there are many topics subsumed under the Postflavian umbrella. We have "Roman Origins of Christianity" as an important focus, but we're also arguing that Judaism is, similarly, a synthetic imperialist construct. And the same for Islam. And, that the grand Pooh-Bahs of all these religions have often conspired together, being fully aware of the scam. (Or at least, to the extent that they figure out the fraudulent nature of the whole scheme, they become much more effective at continuing the Machiavellian maneuvering.) Finally, we have the most speculative branch of Postflaviana, trying to guess what Space Jesus we're going to be presented with for the next millennium. Each topic needs its own reading list.
And then we have a focus on contemporary issues, that gets short shrift.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
This is a hint that Philippians was written to a Hellenistic congregation, and not to a synagogue of Zealots.
If I may ask, which epistles do you hypothesize are written to Hellenized Messianic/Christian pacifists and which are to Zealot Messianic/Christian militants?

Would it help if there's corroborating evidence from the epistles, pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, and DSS?
Yes, please, particularly the (most likely authentic) Pauline epistles

Some people are very impressed by credentialism, to the point where they won't read anything else.
Yes, exactly my point. Many of these people are themselves credentialed and/or hold other forms of power

Namely, is the biblical messages and actions of Jesus and Paul (and Josephus) in line with the core needs of the imperium or not?
Sometimes, certainly. Paying one's taxes sounds good for the imperium. Creating disturbances in the Temple seems less so.

There's an issue central to Christianity (at least some strains) that an adherent is to consider themself first as a subject within the Kingdom of Heaven. However, as a subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, one is to avoid distraction from one's Divine mission by complying with the kingdoms of the earthly domain, to the extent reasonable.

So, yes, Christians should make for model citizens (who has ever argued to the contrary?), but the point is not to be a model citizen for its own sake, but to do so as it furthers the Divine calling one follows

Some epiphany, probably just a different name on his paycheck.
Are we to assume that these paychecks were held until Paul's retirement, at which time a stand-in was used to fake his execution while he scurried off to a hidden resort?

If I have mischaracterized anything, please correct me.
:: curtsies ::

"Richard and Jerry, I'll agree with most anything, but at the end of the Day, it is obvious to me that Paul and Josephus, at least, were really wonderful guys sinners as are we all, inspired by the divine Creator as are we all and we should start from the unassailable premise, contrary to all the texts' behavioral evidence, that they thought themselves to be selflessly acteding in all of humanities's interest, as most of us tell ourselves we are. And therefore Regardless I (and the royal we) should create remain watchful for the creation of the next New Song while continuing to honor them (and quietly their elite sponsors who are entitled to profit disproportionately forever and ever, Amen) whatever works for us, although I personally recommend beginning with the faith of one's ancestors, as ancestor worship is the foundation of subsequent religious development. The problem , dear Richard, is that the crafty Romans knew what Paul was up to and deviously co-opted his glorious efforts, nee hee hee hee.
After all, isn't that what large centrist institutions tend to do: wait for innovators closer to the margin to find success and then buy them out?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Sometimes, certainly. Paying one's taxes sounds good for the imperium. Creating disturbances in the Temple seems less so.
At some point in the Roman's gospel narrative, there must be a reason for Jesus' sad corporeal ending, and which can be placed on the Jews shoulders, and not theirs.

There's an issue central to Christianity (at least some strains) that an adherent is to consider themself first as a subject within the Kingdom of Heaven. However, as a subject of the Kingdom of Heaven, one is to avoid distraction from one's Divine mission by complying with the kingdoms of the earthly domain, to the extent reasonable.

So, yes, Christians should make for model citizens (who has ever argued to the contrary?), but the point is not to be a model citizen for its own sake, but to do so as it furthers the Divine calling one follows
Valliant and Fahy's point is that such a positoin would not suffice for a radical Jew, as Laupot terms them Nazoreans. Similarly this does not suffice for many of the radical Right today. And then one gets dragged back into the issue of how much a "good slave" does one need to be.

"Richard and Jerry, I'll agree with most anything, but at the end of the Day ...
Why can't you be a good Postflavian? :confused:
 
Top