Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
06-05-2021, 05:13 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-05-2021, 02:58 PM)Aion Wrote:  L/L is a non-profit, so I'm not sure what you mean by "stakeholders", although I get if you just mean people who are invested in the materials and participating on sites such as this.

I have wondered a lot about the role of the orange-ray relationship to possessiveness throughout this whole process. I can see interpretations both ways. It's interesting to see the conflict over "control".

You got it.  (Sometimes people confuse stakeholders for shareholders).  I'm more familiar with this in a community vs. public agency situation where the various stakeholders would share their ideas about, say, how newly acquired parkland might be developed and made accommodating to what kinds of recreation.

One further point of importance is that L/L has very limited organizational capacity for taking on new stuff--as it is currently structured.  But the way I hear Jeremy's question being posed, it is deeper than that, one could say.  Should L/L be regarded as an ordinary non-profit or like a quasi-public resource agency?  The difference I am pointing to here is the openness of the governance structure which Jeremy returns to.  Like who the heck is actually on the board?  What items are on any given agenda and where are the notes of the meetings showing what decisions were made, for example.  And the difference would be greater public participation in the decision making.

I'm guessing that I'm like most people here who never really considered it worthwhile to ask such questions before, so I think there's some onus upon our inside agitator (Jeremy) to make a clearer case for why we should not just let this blow over.  Why should this group of stakeholders--old forums hangers on--care about all this?  What's in it for us?  Would it help us to love?  Would it help us to serve?

And just to be clear about my own position: I don't have one yet.  It's a lot to think through.

  
May all beings be happy.
May all beings find peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Sacred Fool's post:
Aion, Jade
06-05-2021, 06:47 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
Transparency is good for sure, but must be so for either side. Just stating that one has good ideas that are viable and don't compromise the seed mission of the org, doesn't necessarily make it so. Assigning the problem to solely the unwillingness of the other party due to their personal idiosyncrasies does nothing to convince me. Even more so when such parties are directed by a board, like any other non-profit. To think personal biases aren't operating on either side, including perhaps an over insistence that one's personal ideas direct the whole, I think misses the whole picture.

And so, if the org is to be held to such scrutiny, then so should all alternative ideas proposed as well. Perhaps once the ideas are publicly outlined, they won't be seen to be so popular afterall, or perhaps it will be made clearer that such projects would indeed be better constructed outside the purvey of the org.

Also, I have found the legally required documentation for non-profit status available online for LLR. There is already much information made available if one is so inclined to look. I found nothing to be concerned about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2021, 09:13 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-05-2021, 06:47 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  Transparency is good for sure, but must be so for either side.
 
What's your argument, Louisabell, for having sides?  Is that really the paradigm we would prefer, this side vs. that side?  Of course, we're all playing different roles in the game, but, just speaking for myself alone, a round table discussion might be a more amiable discussion model...if discussion is where we're going.  And that's a management decision to be considered way off in the hazy future, I would guess.  Right, Austin?
  
May all beings be happy.
May all beings find peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2021, 10:42 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-05-2021, 09:13 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  
(06-05-2021, 06:47 PM)Louisabell Wrote:  Transparency is good for sure, but must be so for either side.
 
What's your argument, Louisabell, for having sides?  Is that really the paradigm we would prefer, this side vs. that side?  Of course, we're all playing different roles in the game, but, just speaking for myself alone, a round table discussion might be a more amiable discussion model...if discussion is where we're going.  And that's a management decision to be considered way off in the hazy future, I would guess.  Right, Austin?
  

I perceived that there was a difference of opinion being expressed in how the org should be structured moving forward. That is to be expected, I suppose. I used "side" for ease of expression, no need to read into it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Louisabell's post:
Sacred Fool
06-06-2021, 01:14 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  --What should be L/L Research's mission and operating structure going in the future?  Should it simply trundle on as it is?  Should it expand or diversify or otherwise transmogrify in an effort to refine its quality or quantity of service?

It should probably remain centered in the heart of itself. So unless those managing it feel for themselves the need for change, then change should be unneeded.

It's good to give suggestions freely without any expectation, which gives them the opportunity to see if they resonate or not with them. But things rarely seem to be offered without any expectation.
 
(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  --Who determines the above?  There seems to exist no transparent process for a discussion along these lines.  Should stakeholder groups have a say in this?  Should they not?  Doesn't receipt of a large endowment beg for some sort of a transparent future planning process?

Those with the honor/duty of both managing and guarding this place, no one else.

Sadly, one thing you can notice in society is that usually when those offering a service or product begin to be swayed by public opinion, the quality of what is offered is greatly diminished. So to me, it is a great benefit that the decision process is held by a few with this honor/duty. You can consider them as safekeepers of this place.
 
(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  --What does it say that LLR is not asking these questions?  Clearly, at least one person (maybe more) is upset by this, but should I care?  Should you care?

Nothing much, sounds just like pushing unto someone a responsibility you want to push on them.

You can't please everyone, so some being upset is a given. The worst thing that could happen is that they start being swept by anyone that gets upset.
   
(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  --What effect does the above opacity of future planning have upon the forums?  Is it a big deal?  Should the forums be more mission oriented (such as more deliberately operating to be of service to the presumed transition to 4D) or should it be maintained as a relatively "customer-driven" enterprise?  If the LLR mission became more focused, how might that affect the forums?
 
I guess that is not for us to decide, unless we are asked for our opinions.


(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  I'm not sure people here would feel comfortable discussing these things (possibly because they may not feel they really are LLR stakeholders), but if so, I'd say this conversation should be split from this thread.  Otherwise, I believe there is some merit in simply having reviewed some of the questions.

If you see yourself as a stakeholder, then it means you are not freely offering your participation without expectation. In all fairness, to me that is a sign that the administration should guard itself against your views.

It is well to offer suggestions, but it should be done without expectations. The forum does not need to be in any member's image, that is not its role.

While the destination is great and all, it's really about the journey. Enjoy each step, other-self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 5 users Like Minyatur's post:
Diana, Louisabell, Margan, Sacred Fool, sunnysideup
06-06-2021, 03:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-06-2021, 03:52 PM by yossarian.)
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
I love how this thread has become so perfectly political! Big Grin

We are now discussing the *classic* problem of politics: who rules?

On one hand we have the idea of a leader bequeathing leadership to an heir. Jim, Gary, Austin being the heirs to Carla who was herself the heir to Don, where (I think) each heir was chosen by the former ruler or "owner" depending on whether you think of LLR more as a piece of property or as a Kingdom of some kind. (I enjoy the romance of the Kingdom analogy)

On the other hand there are some ideas about power of the people or in Jeremy's case, anarchism

I'll throw my hat into the ring.. Plato's Republic argues that power should lie in the hands of an enlightened group of Philosopher Kings. Philosopher Kings are groomed for their entire life in how to rule with justice and prudence. They must renounce all possessions and interests so their entire being is invested only in the success of the Kingdom. With this skin-in-the-game, their motivations are aligned but they also have the skills and power necessary to preserve and correctly rule the Kingdom

IMO the excesses of anarchism and authoritarianism are well-balanced by the concepts of inheritance and grooming. Inheritance ensures investment by the ruler, while grooming ensures competence and careful evaluation.

Carla and Jim had many years to groom and evaluate their heirs. Their total-life investment in the project makes them more concerned with the correct choice than anyone else in the world. They are connected tightly to the history of the project and to its future. They have access to young blood to both evaluate them over time and groom them for the role.

So if Jim is the Elder Statesman Philosopher King and Gary and Austin are young heirs I say ... Long Live the Kings Big Grin

Also you know how we talk about how Jim, Carla, and Don were this esoteric trio of Power, Love, and Wisdom?

Are Jim, Gary, and Austin also a trio of Power, Love, and Wisdom? The shoe fits. Gary is the lush, Austin is the nerd, and Jim remains Jim

Big Grin


"Yossarian was moved deeply by the absolute simplicity of Catch-22."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 4 users Like yossarian's post:
flofrog, Louisabell, Sacred Fool, sunnysideup
06-06-2021, 06:08 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-06-2021, 01:14 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  If you see yourself as a stakeholder, then it means you are not freely offering your participation without expectation. In all fairness, to me that is a sign that the administration should guard itself against your views.

Oh, they definitely should!

Another way of looking at this is that if one does not consider self a stakeholder, then one may feel no strong tie to the enterprise, and so why value their opinion at all, beyond simple curiosity?  In other words, how does one weigh disinterest against caring?  Both have their value.  I would say that one who is motivated by caring may carry the heftier portent--emotion being deeper than intellect, according to the Confederation dudes.  (This statement assumes there are no attending disqualifying biases.)

I'm not sure that your biased view of the value my expectations or lack thereof is as fair as you might wish to believe, my friend.

  
May all beings be happy.
May all beings find peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Sacred Fool's post:
rva_jeremy
06-06-2021, 06:57 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-06-2021, 06:08 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  
(06-06-2021, 01:14 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  If you see yourself as a stakeholder, then it means you are not freely offering your participation without expectation. In all fairness, to me that is a sign that the administration should guard itself against your views.

Oh, they definitely should!

Another way of looking at this is that if one does not consider self a stakeholder, then one may feel no strong tie to the enterprise, and so why value their opinion at all, beyond simple curiosity?  In other words, how does one weigh disinterest against caring?  Both have their value.  I would say that one who is motivated by caring may carry the heftier portent--emotion being deeper than intellect, according to the Confederation dudes.  (This statement assumes there are no attending disqualifying biases.)

I'm not sure that your biased view of the value my expectations or lack thereof is as fair as you might wish to believe, my friend.

I might be wrong, but the notion of stakeholder in this context seems to imply being owed back something for one's participation.

I don't think either that caring for the forum can be equated with wanting to have a say in how it is managed.

While the destination is great and all, it's really about the journey. Enjoy each step, other-self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2021, 07:41 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-06-2021, 06:57 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  I might be wrong, but the notion of stakeholder in this context seems to imply being owed back something for one's participation.

A stakeholder is one who has some sort of stake in the enterprise.  For instance, hikers, equestrians, cyclists, etc. would be stakeholders in a recreation planning discussion--by way of analogy.

Quote:I don't think either that caring for the forum can be equated with wanting to have a say in how it is managed.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but just as hikers, etc. care about their opportunities for recreation--or perhaps they care about land stewardship in general--there are various groups and people who care about the future planning of the L/L Research enterprise.

Of course, I say this last thing because I would like to believe it.  In truth, how many people answered L/L Central's poll about the forums?  I forget the exact number, but I think it was less than 20.  In any event, it was a very small number.  So, maybe not so many people care about this stuff after all?  I don't know.

My point here is not to advance my own opinions, btw Minyatur, but to point out the questions raised and to wonder about the format for a real discussion, should one be deemed desirable.

  
May all beings be happy.
May all beings find peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2021, 08:37 PM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
sometimes i like to look up the etymology of certain words to get a sense for their origin and meaning:

stake-holder (n.)
also stakeholder, 1708, "one with whom bets are deposited when a wager is made," from stake (n.2) + agent noun from hold (v.). Originally one with whom bets are deposited when a wager is made. By 1965 as "one who has something to gain or lose" (in a business, etc.), "one who has an interest in" (something).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2021, 03:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-07-2021, 04:45 PM by Bring4th_Austin.)
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
It's interesting (and a bit baffling) to see an announcement about a relatively minor shift in Bring4th policy unfold into such a broad discussion about organizational governance, mission, and scope of L/L Research as a whole. There are many valuable thoughts shared here, and I see a strangely beautiful tapestry of hearts and minds driven by sincere desire to bring higher principles to bear upon the confusion of third density social structures. I am slightly concerned that this conversation being an outgrowth of a process that Bring4th has been embroiled in for several months might create conflation about what exactly is being discussed. For instance, using the analogy of hikers in talking about stakeholders, Bring4th would simply be one hiking trail among the much broader stewardship of L/L Research's mission. Any discussion about L/L Research's governance that takes place on Bring4th - much less within a contentious announcement about a specific policy - will necessarily exclude a massive portion of L/L Research's so-called "stakeholders."

Not to say such discussion is without merit, I just think it's important to keep in mind the limited scope any such discussion could really have. For my part, the best I think I can do in a discussion like this is respond to various threads that seem meaningful and do my best to integrate the discussion into the much larger context of the whole L/L Research picture. For others participating in such a discussion, I do think it would be very valuable to reflect on exactly what aspects of L/L Research's stewardship you intersect with and feel yourself to be a stakeholder (i.e. what trails do you hike)? And then how do those intersect and combine with the other aspects of L/L Research? The scope of the expenditure of L/L Research's resources, decision-making, and other organizational details are detailed in-depth in the Blogworthy reports (along with answers and important details related to much of this discussion).


(06-05-2021, 02:42 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  Just speaking for my little old self, Aion, respectfully, I think you've missed the mark here.  The question coming up is, can the governance of the forums really be separated from the governance of LLR?  So far, it seems, CSC members haven't given that much thought. 
 
To clarify, what's being questioned (to my mind) is not whether Austin & Gary are decent folks who rightfully have their own ideas about how to live their lives.  The questions being raised are these.
 
--What should be L/L Research's mission and operating structure going in the future?  Should it simply trundle on as it is?  Should it expand or diversify or otherwise transmogrify in an effort to refine its quality or quantity of service?
 
--Who determines the above?  There seems to exist no transparent process for a discussion along these lines.  Should stakeholder groups have a say in this?  Should they not?  Doesn't receipt of a large endowment beg for some sort of a transparent future planning process?
 
--What does it say that LLR is not asking these questions?  Clearly, at least one person (maybe more) is upset by this, but should I care?  Should you care?
 
--What effect does the above opacity of future planning have upon the forums?  Is it a big deal?  Should the forums be more mission oriented (such as more deliberately operating to be of service to the presumed transition to 4D) or should it be maintained as a relatively "customer-driven" enterprise?  If the LLR mission became more focused, how might that affect the forums?

The position I'm in as L/L Research's Co-Director creates a lens of perspective that I think both obscures and illuminates in different ways. This is obviously true for anyone witnessing participating in L/L Research and depends heavily on their relationship and awareness of the organization. I bring that up because I think it's a bit of a hurdle for a public discussion like this. And whether my particular lens is more illuminating or more obscuring in this case, it's hard to say for sure (obviously, I think it's more illuminating, but that might be the lens talking). Another way in which this difference of perspective muddies these waters is that references to discussions or movements involving me and Gary as representatives of L/L Research depict a certain reality that is quite at odds with the reality I experienced. I mention this only because it seems to place a certain burden of assumption on the discussion, where notions are woven into the discussion that are difficult to address because of this different accounting for realities.

So with that in mind, I see assumptions contained in these questions that make it impossible to consider them in a genuine way. I can only return questions about these assumptions:

- What does it mean for L/L Research to "trundle on as it is"? What "is it," currently? What service is being referred to?

- What means of transparency (beyond what already exists) could exist for the various specifics brought up?

- Where does the notion that "LLR is not asking these questions" come from?

It is worth mentioning that we have designed a new section of the website to give an easier and more condensed look into what we're calling "Yellow-Ray Details" of L/L Research, including the sharing of board details, the annual 990 filing, details about the endowment, resources, etc. All of these things are easily accessed publicly now through various means, but creating more ease of access to this kind of information will hopefully increase the perceived transparency. (That new website/page is no longer on the distant horizon, but is quite imminent.)


(06-06-2021, 03:48 PM)yossarian Wrote:  Carla and Jim had many years to groom and evaluate their heirs. Their total-life investment in the project makes them more concerned with the correct choice than anyone else in the world. They are connected tightly to the history of the project and to its future. They have access to young blood to both evaluate them over time and groom them for the role.

So if Jim is the Elder Statesman Philosopher King and Gary and Austin are young heirs I say ... Long Live the Kings Big Grin

Well, I guess that settles it then. See you all at the next big Bring4th announcement. Smile

Of course the situation is more complicated. This perspective does put me and Gary in quite a comfy position, so I'd certainly be inclined to rest in it, but would prefer to avoid placing all of the L/L Research eggs in the "lineage" basket. But I also think it's a very valid aspect of this whole discussion. The founders of this organization created and shaped the torch that Gary and I hope to carry forward with the same integrity. We don't take it lightly, and decisions are generally approached from the trajectory and template set by them. Not that we expect that we can or should perfectly embody their essence in the path of L/L Research, but it is the ground upon which we stand, however sturdy or shaky our legs. And this torch isn't being passed blindly.


Quote:Are Jim, Gary, and Austin also a trio of Power, Love, and Wisdom? The shoe fits. Gary is the lush, Austin is the nerd, and Jim remains Jim

Big Grin

How dare you.


(06-06-2021, 07:41 PM)Sacred Fool Wrote:  
(06-06-2021, 06:57 PM)Minyatur Wrote:  I don't think either that caring for the forum can be equated with wanting to have a say in how it is managed.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but just as hikers, etc. care about their opportunities for recreation--or perhaps they care about land stewardship in general--there are various groups and people who care about the future planning of the L/L Research enterprise.

Of course, I say this last thing because I would like to believe it.  In truth, how many people answered L/L Central's poll about the forums?  I forget the exact number, but I think it was less than 20.  In any event, it was a very small number.  So, maybe not so many people care about this stuff after all?  I don't know.

My point here is not to advance my own opinions, btw Minyatur, but to point out the questions raised and to wonder about the format for a real discussion, should one be deemed desirable.

To build on the seed I planted earlier that the "stakeholders," in your analogy, would be quite a varied and wide base of various people that intersect with L/L Research in a wide variety of ways. The method of polling the forums about the present and future state of the forums is in the same spirit with which we approach many decisions that might have an impact on those stakeholders. The method of public polling is only one way that we try to keep in touch with the various microcosms of L/L Research's macrocosmic gestalt. Feedback, both solicited and unsolicited, is abundant. Collaboration and consensus with volunteers of many various services and projects is constant and extensive. The amount of communication moving through L/L Research inboxes would probably astonish most people, and perhaps the most abundant type of email communication we receive is what we'd generally classify as "seeker ministry." We invest a lot of time receiving and responding to people seeking spiritual guidance, asking questions about the material and how it pertains to their life, sharing stories or ideas, and all other manner of expression of desire, insight, and need from a large base of seekers.

Gary and I aren't sitting around in Louisville isolated from what is being called "stakeholders" - we are in constant, unending communication via many various points of connection with them. When we make decisions, we aren't simply imagining what might be best for some disembodied reader or seeker; we are doing our best to weave these lines of communication together into coherent expression of L/L Research mission that might best serve this complex ecosystem of spiritual seeking.
_____________________________
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like Bring4th_Austin's post:
flofrog, Louisabell, sunnysideup
06-09-2021, 12:43 AM,
RE: Upcoming change - political discussion and the politics subforum
(06-07-2021, 03:51 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote:  It's interesting (and a bit baffling) to see an announcement about a relatively minor shift in Bring4th policy unfold into such a broad discussion about organizational governance, mission, and scope of L/L Research as a whole. 
 
Yes, it's also interesting that your announcement of a minor shift scared off many of the current forum users.  Funny world, eh?
 
Just to be clear about the public recreation analogy, in those cases there are often conflicts between user groups which have to be weighed.  The equestrians wish to never see a mountain bike and want dedicated equestrian/pedestrian trails while the mountain bikers want their own dedicated trails so as to not have to deal with the other groups.  So how are resources to be allocated when the space and funds for trails are limited?  The point I was trying to make was about future planning which balances out concerns about purpose with availability of resources.
 
 
Of course, L/L Research is not a parkland, but an aquatic resource.  If you will recall..... Once upon a time........
  
(05-30-2021, 07:31 AM)Steppingfeet Wrote:  Part 1: Creating the Lake

Greetings all! In love. And light. And in the Creator of us all.

There are many, many bodies of water among the ponds and lakes of the world. On its own tiny piece of property, L/L Research built one such little lake. They cultivated the landscape, planted new trees, built some structures to enhance access to and experience of the lake, and set up services. Because this isn’t a lawless space, they also posted some basic guidelines: any swimmer voluntarily wishing to enjoy the waters here must agree to these guidelines for safe and respectful collective use of the lake.

And then L/L opened the space up to the others in the spirit of gift and service. The waters, the grass, the trees, the birds, the sky… it was beautiful.

But the most challenging element of all entered, humans… : ) For the creators and stewards of this space, the human element made it a place of joy and connection, and great effort was made to accommodate many needs as time went on, but for the stewards, the experience also often became one of sorrow and pain. In fact, the temptation has been great at times to close it down to public use. Through the grind of being worn down by discordant and disrespectful energies, and the demonstrable lack of maturity among some for operating in a boundaried environment, etc, there was, on L/L’s part, a gradual pulling back from active stewardship. In its stead was a retreat to basic behind-the-scenes enforcement of the posted rules so as to keep the lake relatively safe at least for people to swim. And so it rolled on for some years.
 
 
Perhaps, old boy, my analogy is not as far fetched as it might appear?  Likewise, please bear with me as I point out to you that this exercise--such as I am speaking of in theoretical terms--is not at all about whether or not you and Gary are in touch or out of touch with the scope of your recreational users, volunteers beneficiaries and others.  IT IS ABOUT PLANNING for the future...or not planning for the future: that is the question.
 
At some point Jim & Carla did this in an in-house sort of a way when they hired staff.  It is possible--you may concede--that at some point you and Gary should also look ahead and contemplate the future.  That may not seem necessary now, and summertime is maybe the worst time for this anyhow, but I think you guys owe it to yourselves to consider the larger picture.  That is, the larger picture at this moment is that--as evinced in your response above--you guys have not considered really thinking abut the future the way many organisations do.
  
The Louisville area is growing.  One would hope that local leaders and planning staff will look ahead to guess at what might be coming down the road to meet them and do some planning around housing, transportation and all that sort of thing.  Non-profits often do something similar.  This, Austin, is NOT to imply that these people are out of touch with the people around them.  It IS to say that there are benefits to planning a future course according to what your values and capacities are.
 
Personally, I am not spewing all this out for to say that you guys are bad stewards of LLR.  Trust me, if I were holding that opinion, such would be more obvious.  No.  I am borrowing some of the energy of our friend Jeremy's intensity and using that to open up this particular line of thought.  That's all.  So far. 
 
So, out there in the wild, sometimes organisations hold meetings of their stakeholders to discuss where they've been to date and where they want to go over the next, say, ten years.  It can be a very helpful team building exercise, by the way.  You would likely want to hire a consultant who would ask the various groups of concerned persons what their ideas for a future path might look like.  Then this consultant would attempt to arrange the various pieces into a coherent mosaic which might be a useful thing for enterprise as an whole.
  
You guys may not wish to do this now...or ever.  I'm not trying to jam this down your collective Co-King throats.  It's just that...well...this place has become more quiet than a library after closing time these days and it's hard to find things to talk about, you know?  Consider it an act of desperation that all I can think to post about right now are administrative matters.
  
May all beings be happy.
May all beings find peace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Sacred Fool's post:
rva_jeremy




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)