students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden.

by veya_victaous Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:46 am

First topic message reminder :

VICTORIAN students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden.
This is one of the new rules put in place by the Victorian government to tackle how religion is taught in schools.
Students will also be allowed to dress up for the Hindu festival, Diwali, or indulge in sweet delights from Muslim’s Eid celebrations.
But looking at the Bible, Koran or any other religious text will be strictly banned in class time from next year.
Prayers and instructions on how to live in accordance to a particular faith will also be unacceptable in the classroom.
Under the new government plan, Special Religious Instruction can be taught in schools in the hour before or after school or at lunch times by an accredited instructor approved by the Minister for Education.
A teacher must also be present and children must have permission from their parents to attend.
Fairness in Religions in School chief executive Lara Wood has been fighting to eliminate Special Religious Instruction from state schools and while she welcomed the changes, she still had her concerns.
“We are worried about the lunchtime classes because we know from past experience the volunteers do try to convert the kids and don’t stick to the curriculum,” she said.
“We are concerned that could happen.”

Principals get to decide whether they want Special Religious Instruction within their school at all and Ms Wood commended the government for giving them more power.
“If a school did decide to take it on, it would mean a lot more work for schools because they will have to closely monitor the program to make sure the rules are being followed,” she said.
In Victorian state schools previously, children were being split up to learn about their religion during class time.
Ms Wood said school work was impacted and children were segregated.
“The new guidelines will remove this problem altogether though and I think it’s fantastic,” she said.
It will now be the teacher’s responsibility to educate children generally about religion and the main holidays and celebrations.
On occasion, guest speakers who are representatives of a particular faith can explain their religion further to students but they must not promote it.
Ms Wood said teaching children about all religions would make them more tolerant, respectful and accepting.

by Syl Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:What a 'bah humbug ' thread this has turned out to be.

Christmas by the very name is a Christian celebration...singing carols, father Christmas, decorations are all part of it.
Why should schools not enter into the spirit.
I should think anyone of a different faith would enjoy all the rituals without having to believe in the concept.

My hindu neighbours love all the joy of Christmas...we swap cards. pressies and their Christmas tree is always up before ours.

This schools are allowing all that stuff. My point was that if they don't want to encourage religious belief, they're being hypocritical in allowing carols but not hymns. I don't think they thought it through, and they're just histrionic about religion.

I wonder who objects to the hymns? probably do gooding white brits scared stiff of upsetting any minority group.
My local primary school do morning hymns in assembly, but they have an opt out system for any parent who doesn't want their children singing hymns. It's a C of E school but has a mixed group of pupils.
Last time I spoke to someone from there no one was opting out.

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:22 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This schools are allowing all that stuff. My point was that if they don't want to encourage religious belief, they're being hypocritical in allowing carols but not hymns. I don't think they thought it through, and they're just histrionic about religion.

I wonder who objects to the hymns? probably do gooding white brits scared stiff of upsetting any minority group.
My local primary school do morning hymns in assembly, but they have an opt out system for any parent who doesn't want their children singing hymns. It's a C of E school but has a mixed group of pupils.
Last time I spoke to someone from there no one was opting out.

This is in Australia, so it's histrionic Aussies, not Brits. Laughing

by Syl Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I wonder who objects to the hymns? probably do gooding white brits scared stiff of upsetting any minority group.
My local primary school do morning hymns in assembly, but they have an opt out system for any parent who doesn't want their children singing hymns. It's a C of E school but has a mixed group of pupils.
Last time I spoke to someone from there no one was opting out.

This is in Australia, so it's histrionic Aussies, not Brits.

They probably originated from here though. Wink

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:27 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This is in Australia, so it's histrionic Aussies, not Brits.

They probably originated from here though.

Now you sound like Veya. He blames the Brits for everything, even if they're not actually Brits.

by Ben Reilly Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:29 pm

Why are religious people so insistent that kids be indoctrinated into religion at school?

by Syl Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:30 pm

Just pointing out a historical fact Raggamuffin. Smile

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:31 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why are religious people so insistent that kids be indoctrinated into religion at school?

I haven't said that. I said that distinguishing between hymns and carols is stupid.

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:32 pm

Syl wrote:Just pointing out a historical fact Raggamuffin.

That's what he always says too ...

There's nothing to suggest these are British people - they might even be French.

by Syl Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:39 pm

Well they have a 3 in 4 chance of originating from here....so I will stick with that likelihood.

I don't know Veya, I will keep a look out for him.

by Ben Reilly Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Why are religious people so insistent that kids be indoctrinated into religion at school?

I haven't said that. I said that distinguishing between hymns and carols is stupid.

The story talks about it, though, and you do see it all the time. In the U.S., it's crap like this:

students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden. - Page 2 5963807

students can make Christmas decorations and sing carols in class but hymns are forbidden. - Page 2 5963807

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:46 pm

Syl wrote:Well they have a 3 in 4 chance of originating from here....so I will stick with that likelihood.

I don't know Veya, I will keep a look out for him.

The Aussies are quite capable of being anti-religion as much as the next person. I don't think there's any need to start dragging Brits into it, unless of course you want to say that all the good things about Australia are also down to the Brits. Don't let Veya see you say that though. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 5:47 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't said that. I said that distinguishing between hymns and carols is stupid.

The story talks about it, though, and you do see it all the time. In the U.S., it's crap like this:

I don't see how that relates to my post.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:02 pm

Didge wrote:Rags has a point.
If this is about celebrating Christmas, you really cannot leave out the religious aspect, as it is a Christian celebration
No matter that I agree religion should have no part in running a school, such festivals are integral part of education and integration between all faiths and non-faiths.

Well, I'm with you. That's what I indicated in my first post ^^ on page one. The history of religion is very much a part of the festivities. The actual worship is another thing.

I think the carols, the trees, and even the lil' red-ensembled elf are all quite proper. It's a little closer call when you include a nativity scene.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I don't see why they should ban Santa -- he's not a religious figure, after all. That would be like trying to ban the Easter bunny on religious grounds.

Who cares who thinks which version of Santa is better? ... never envisioned myself typing out *that* sentence

Try telling children that Santa is not a religious figure - most of them worship him.

Yes, but it's not necessarily a Christian celebration. Going back to sassy's point, these tales and traditions come from all sorts of beliefs and religions. And the kids don't care about religious doctrine...they love the presents.

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Try telling children that Santa is not a religious figure - most of them worship him.

Yes, but it's not necessarily a Christian celebration. Going back to sassy's point, these tales and traditions come from all sorts of beliefs and religions. And the kids don't care about religious doctrine...they love the presents.

St Nicholas was the inspiration for Santa Claus.

They'd do better to address the greed and commercialism at Christmas really.

Anyway, does it all mean that the Royal Anthem will be banned too? After all, it mentions God.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but it's not necessarily a Christian celebration. Going back to sassy's point, these tales and traditions come from all sorts of beliefs and religions. And the kids don't care about religious doctrine...they love the presents.

St Nicholas was the inspiration for Santa Claus.

Or the other way around. I read where a small elf bringing gifts pre-dated Christ as a part of the winter festival.

Raggamuffin wrote:They'd do better to address the greed and commercialism at Christmas really.

Or both. One does not preclude the other.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, does it all mean that the Royal Anthem will be banned too? After all, it mentions God.

We had that issue too, when President Eisenhower put the words 'Under God' into the pledge. The Supreme Court, I believe, allowed it because it didn't say which god.

by eddie Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:44 pm

I have no problem with religion in schools or religious songs being sung, in schools.

People need to start realising that religion itself isn't a big bad wolf; the wacko-fanatics are the wolves at your door carrying bombs and guns.

I'm sick and tired of this being outlawed and then that being outlawed. What next? Can't wear a certain colour because it offends some people or a religion or a race?

It amazes me that so many people who shout down religion because, they claim, it "tells people what to do" are shouting down everything else and telling everyone else, "what to do"!!!

These songs have been around years and years and children and adults have enjoyed singing them for years and years.
I have never, ever, heard of a song, killing somebody violently or otherwise.

Ps "killing me softly with his song..." Does NOT count!

by Tommy Monk Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:34 pm

I don't think we should be watering down or banning any of our regular traditions or festivals in schools.

Especially these days when children are forced to learn about other foreign ones so much...

There's nothing wrong with the putting on of the school nativity play... and the kids involved in doing it get a lot of enjoyment from it all, as well as the undeniable educational values gained through being part of the whole production experience, character building, confidence building, team building, improved literacy/memory/communication skills from the reading/remembering/reciting the lines of script etc, plus improving awareness of and practice of other key skills such as organization/time management/responsibility etc...

by veya_victaous Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:11 pm

sassy wrote:I was trying to think of a carol that isn't a hymn, only one I can think of is Good King Wenceslas, even The Holly and The Ivy has religious overtones.

SANTA!!!!

Secular Christmas is about 'Love and giving'

by veya_victaous Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:15 pm

Plus we are making new ones (since we sing snow songs when it is 40C outside sunny

)

by Victorismyhero Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:16 pm

wrong..its about selling and takings

by veya_victaous Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Try telling children that Santa is not a religious figure - most of them worship him.

Yes, but it's not necessarily a Christian celebration. Going back to sassy's point, these tales and traditions come from all sorts of beliefs and religions. And the kids don't care about religious doctrine...they love the presents.

St Nicholas was the inspiration for Santa Claus.

They'd do better to address the greed and commercialism at Christmas really.

Anyway, does it all mean that the Royal Anthem will be banned too? After all, it mentions God.

No he is not, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus

The history of the Krampus figure has been theorized as stretching back to pre-Christian traditions. In a brief article discussing the figure, published in 1958, Maurice Bruce wrote:
There seems to be little doubt as to his true identity for, in no other form is the full regalia of the Horned God of the Witches so well preserved. The birch—apart from its phallic significance—may have a connection with the initiation rites of certain witch-covens; rites which entailed binding and scourging as a form of mock-death. The chains could have been introduced in a Christian attempt to 'bind the Devil' but again they could be a remnant of pagan initiation rites.^[2]
Discussing his observations while in Irdning, a small town in Styria in 1975, anthropologist John J. Honigmann wrote that:
The Saint Nicholas festival we are describing incorporates cultural elements widely distributed in Europe, in some cases going back to pre-Christian times. Nicholas himself became popular in Germany around the eleventh century. The feast dedicated to this patron of children is only one winter occasion in which children are the objects of special attention, others being Martinmas, the Feast of the Holy Innocents, and New Year's Day. Masked devils acting boisterously and making nuisances of themselves are known in Germany since at least the sixteenth century while animal masked devils combining dreadful-comic (schauriglustig) antics appeared in Medieval church plays. A large literature, much of it by European folklorists, bears on these subjects. ... Austrians in the community we studied are quite aware of "heathen" elements being blended with Christian elements in the Saint Nicholas customs and in other traditional winter ceremonies. They believe Krampus derives from a pagan supernatural who was assimilated to the Christian devil.^[3]

We are a Capitalist Society the Commercialization is part of what it means to be a westerner.

And No but we don't sing the royal anthem anyway we have out own anthem and this is in Australia where we are sensible and realize there is a difference between mention something in a fictional context and worshiping something. God/Jesus is like Santa something for children's fairy tales that you are meant to grow out of.

by veya_victaous Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:48 am

by Original Quill Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:52 am

Eds wrote:People need to start realising that religion itself isn't a big bad wolf; the wacko-fanatics are the wolves at your door carrying bombs and guns.

History wasn't your best subject, was it? If I may suggest, you sound an awful lot like those 'wacko-fanatics' who went on crusades in the 11th- and 12th-centuries.

by veya_victaous Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:21 am

by eddie Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Eds wrote:People need to start realising that religion itself isn't a big bad wolf; the wacko-fanatics are the wolves at your door carrying bombs and guns.

History wasn't your best subject, was it? If I may suggest, you sound an awful lot like those 'wacko-fanatics' who went on crusades in the 11th- and 12th-centuries.

You can suggest it but it isn't true, is it?
Religion isn't evil - if it were it would make everyone who followed it evil.

Or aRe you saying that's wrong?

by Original Quill Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:22 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

History wasn't your best subject, was it? If I may suggest, you sound an awful lot like those 'wacko-fanatics' who went on crusades in the 11th- and 12th-centuries.

You can suggest it but it isn't true, is it?
Religion isn't evil - if it were it would make everyone who followed it evil.

Or aRe you saying that's wrong?

Ask didge...I believe he's saying that radical Islam (Wahhabism) accounts for ISIL, which accounts for Paris and the downing of a Russian aircraft out of Sharm-el-Sheikh. Religion is a belief system, and yes such ideologies are what motivate movements.

But before we jump to conclusions, you missed an important parallel, which may not be so much an analogy, but a thing-in-itself. The crusades were started by overly-enthusiastic Christians, who ventured into the homelands of Islam and wreaked havoc, murder and mayhem there. The parallel is that the US and UK did the same in 2003.

That's what caused all of this: Western Christians reinvented the crusade movement. The weapons and military ranks may look, and be organized differently, but there's no denying that it was the same phenomenon. And--surprise of all surprises--the citizens of Islam fought back.

Now, we look at all of this retaliation and curse it, claiming that Islam is the one that is out-of-order. It's as if we are ignoring that we started it all. If you want to draw moral principles, look to the entire story. These are the crusades--updated version.

by Major Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:41 pm

Dunno know why anyone goes back in history about muzziz, it does not count for anything.

NOW NOW NOW is that which REALLY matters.

WE are at war, do ya wanna win or lose?

I know what I want, WIN and I do not give a flying frog how we do it but WIN WIN WIN.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:55 pm

Stormee wrote:Dunno know why anyone goes back in history about muzziz, it does not count for anything.

NOW NOW NOW is that which REALLY matters.

WE are at war, do ya wanna win or lose?

I know what I want, WIN and I do not give a flying frog how we do it but WIN WIN WIN.

You'll find that several people on this forum live in the past - often hundreds or even thousands of years in the past. Good luck with trying to bring them into the present.

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:38 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Stormee wrote:Dunno know why anyone goes back in history about muzizles my blizzle fo shizzle, it does not count for anything.

NOW NOW NOW is that which REALLY matters.

WE are at war, do ya wanna win or lose?

I know what I want, WIN and I do not give a flying frog how we do it but WIN WIN WIN.

You'll find that several people on this forum live in the past - often hundreds or even thousands of years in the past. Good luck with trying to bring them into the present.

In fact, every debate gets so drenched in history that it's often too soggy and ruined to even read the debate anymore.

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:39 am

Some people insist on going back hundreds of years to prove that the English were at fault for all the ills that are around now! Step forward Quill.

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:40 am

PS, veya is not without fault either.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:40 pm

Stormee wrote:Dunno know why anyone goes back in history about muzizles my blizzle fo shizzle, it does not count for anything.

NOW NOW NOW is that which REALLY matters.

When is that? Are you saying yesterday didn't happen? What you said above you didn't mean? Or that it is merely irrelevant?

If history does not matter for something, then last year, last month, last week, yesterday, and last night--and indeed, what you said an hour ago--does not count for anything. If you want to cut off history, then let's cut off all of the past.

But you don't seem to make that logical connection. Most who make this argument want to put history in a box and say it didn't happen...or, what is the same thing, that it is irrelevant...it is somehow cut off from now. Let's wipe out the past.

You can't pick and choose. If you are going to hold anyone to a standard of consistency, you have to account for what that person did in the past. If you can wipe out history, then you can wipe out yesterday. Paris didn't happen...too remote. 9-11 didn't happen...too remote. 7-7 didn't happen...too remote.

No, my friends...distancing yourself does not make the truth go away. If you want to argue such existential nonsense as time doesn't matter, then everything goes away at the flip of a switch. Distance is not a barrier. It is not a box. It's just an escape. It's a way of impetuously saying, I don't wanna talk about that right now!--kinda like a nagging housewife avoiding an inconvenient truth in the argument.

History is an account of cause and effect. Just as you want to say, you said this or that, or did this or that, history is a record of the same kind, only farther back. Indeed, this point this time is to say, you haven't changed all that much. What you thought was in the remote past, is right here and now. We are still going on crusades to the Middle East to try and convert them in some way.

Stromee wrote:WE are at war, do ya wanna win or lose?

I know what I want, WIN and I do not give a flying frog how we do it but WIN WIN WIN.

What are you going to win? Have you ever closed your eyes and envisioned what the world will be like when you win? No Muslims? Perpetual sunshine? A cornucopia fruits and candy? 1.7- billion people are not going to go away without some serious genocide. And if you are not willing to go there, please tell us what the world will look like when you win.

In fact, you don't want to win. You don't have any idea what winning means. You want revenge. You want to cause pain. You covet the battle, and you care not a wit what the world will look like when the smoke clears.

Well hello my friends. Welcome to history. We invaded Iraq in 2003, and got 10-years of endless war (unless, like cowards, we cut and run--which we apparently are willing to do, because hey, that's history), hundreds of thousands of dead babies, and, for the US's part, $17-trillion in debt and a near second Great Depression (October, 2008). We also got, in the process, a return to kidnapping, torture, military rape and looting, and sunk ourselves into the same gutter of filth that Nazi Germany discovered a few short decades ago.

And you know how we got there? We denied history. We put ourselves in little boxes and cut off our view of the past. We encapsulated history and relegated it to some far off place, so we could deal with the now...as if now doesn't hold the same sand pits we see over and over.

So Stromee, your point is a retrograde visit into the past of cave men and revenge and gutteral grunts and urges. You have no idea what you want. You don't understand history, so likewise you cannot create visions of the future. You're the same as an amoeba in a petri dish, ever reacting to what hurts and what feels good...incapable of evolution.

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:55 pm

Never read such bollocks in my life, no ONE in this world is responsible for what happened a hundred or more years ago.

by Major Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:36 pm

Not interested in going so far back in history.

I live for today and tomorrow, for my family and then our own decent people.

I do not care about those over seas cus whether or not I care or you care does not make one Toyota of difference.

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:45 pm

Well said Stormee, Quill always tries to blame whats happening today on what we did hundrds of years ago.
Can't get it through his thick head that we are Not responsible for what our fathers or Grandfathers did.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:10 pm

nicko wrote:Well said Stormee, Quill always tries to blame whats happening today on what we did hundrds of years ago.
Can't get it through his thick head that we are Not responsible for what our fathers or Grandfathers did.

So you deny history? What happened in Paris a week ago didn't happen?

Obviously, you just want to cherry-pick the facts of history that suit you, nicko. Ignoring facts is a RW habit...what else is new?

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:29 pm

Quill you're spitting hairs tbh.

Yes recent history is relevant, but you have to have some kind of cut off point - otherwise we could debating about records that may or may not, have existed or been doctored or whatever.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:34 pm

eddie wrote:Quill you're spitting hairs tbh.

Yes recent history is relevant, but you have to have some kind of cut off point - otherwise we could debating about records that may or may not, have existed or been doctored or whatever.

Ah, but then who decides the cutoff point? I would propose that if a historical event still influences society, it's still relevant.

And a lot of people don't realize how historical events still influence some people's lives because they're not that familiar with how other people live.

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:44 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill you're spitting hairs tbh.

Yes recent history is relevant, but you have to have some kind of cut off point - otherwise we could debating about records that may or may not, have existed or been doctored or whatever.

Ah, but then who decides the cutoff point? I would propose that if a historical event still influences society, it's still relevant.

And a lot of people don't realize how historical events still influence some people's lives because they're not that familiar with how other people live.

Yes I do see the problem with a cutoff date, I understand that, but I guess with stuff like Nazi Germany: can we still hold people accountable for that when it's done and dusted and over with? Yes, I'm aware that there are still people alive that have been affexted via older family members etc but....is it relevant to a debate about the Germany of now?

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:45 pm

Also, if you keep just going back and back - you end up realising that there's no real "start" so therefore how can you reach a conclusion?

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:50 pm

wHAT HAPPENED IN PARIS did not happen? what the fuck are you on ? il'l never understand your mind set
your a riddle in an enigma.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:50 pm

But, don't ideas spread by the Nazis persist into the present, even in Germany?

by nicko Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:52 pm

To listen to the left wing here all the right wing are Nazi's

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:55 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:But, don't ideas spread by the Nazis persist into the present, even in Germany?

I guess...? Perhaps that's not a good examples then.
My point is, sometimes debates go so far back in history, it becomes like trying to read mud.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:55 pm

eddie wrote:Quill you're spitting hairs tbh.

Yes recent history is relevant, but you have to have some kind of cut off point - otherwise we could debating about records that may or may not, have existed or been doctored or whatever.

How recent is recent? Some RWers are arguing as we speak that the Iraq war is ancient history. Yet most seem to agree that it bears a direct causal link to the problems in the Middle East today. Likewise, people who hate Muslims still point to 9-11, even though if the Iraq War is ancient history, 9-11 is ancient, ancient history.

History is an adversarial thing. We all want to go there if it serves our side. But we all want to put it in a box and hide it away if it goes against us. Arguing that at some point history should be closed is futile and self-contradictory. Next week you'll be hauling it out again when it serves your purpose. Like I say, it's just RW cherry-picking.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:57 pm

nicko wrote:wHAT HAPPENED IN PARIS did not happen? what the fuck are you on ? il'l never understand your mind set
your a riddle in an enigma.

It's your proposition. You say anything in the past doesn't count. You tell us.

by eddie Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:58 pm

Yes I've just been saying that to Ben ^^^^

But like I am saying, going too far back is muddying at times...you know?

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:00 pm

Look, lefties will go back thousands of years in order to blame the Brits for the ills of the world - we all know this. Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:01 pm

eddie wrote:Yes I've just been saying that to Ben ^^^^

But like I am saying, going too far back is muddying at times...you know?

Going back, however far, is relevant if it makes a point.

This whole thing started because my point was...do you realize how far back your motives are? It's ancient history. Time to put it to sleep.

by Sponsored content