Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of Rashi- Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only quoting the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is any objection full mail will be quoted. Read He as Parashara. ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in case of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional charts. Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by implication the results) of planets. He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated weak or by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 Ch. 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart from D-5 onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th part of a Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas obtained. But think about the minuscule part of the time it will represent on the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, and the fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The fact that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for that would be obvious. Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its method to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was no necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala and most of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka scheme''. Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with Mr.Bose regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen yourself attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. Respect Pradeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I fail to see the connection between ishta and kashta bala and special ascendants as well as avasthas and Vimshopaka bala that I am talking about and there being no aspects in D-chart, that you want to imply I have said in the mail. In the mail I am stating in the post how strength of planets are derived from the navamsha chart keeping in view Parashara principles. I have not changed that position of mine. Do you find anywhere in the post that I am saying that aspects can not be seen in D-charts, in the mail? Strength derived by a planet from navamsha is different from aspects within a D-chart. Posting part of an argument does not make any point in this already lengthening discussion on whether sages indicated aspects in D-charts or not. I have also given my personal views as distinct from the sages said. there is no use in mixing the two and try to show as if I change my position, if that is what you intend to do. I have never imposed my views on others and never have I said that what I say is the ultimate truth in astrology. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of Rashi- > Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only quoting > the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is any > objection full mail will be quoted. > > Read He as Parashara. > > ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in case > of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional charts. > > Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > implication the results) of planets. > > He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are > destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated weak or > by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously > states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 Ch. > 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . > > Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart from D-5 > onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. > > I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th part of a > Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas obtained. > But think about the minuscule part of the time it will represent on > the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, and the > fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The fact > that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for that > would be obvious. > > Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its method > to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain > transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was no > necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala and most > of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka > scheme''. > > Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with Mr.Bose > regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen yourself > attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > ------ > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji You have said , 1)Parashara did not ask us to cast a chart while for special lagnas he does. 2)He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. 3)Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by implication the results) of planets. If you feel these are not relevant then i have no comment to make. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I fail to see the connection between ishta and kashta bala and special > ascendants as well as avasthas and Vimshopaka bala that I am talking > about and there being no aspects in D-chart, that you want to imply I > have said in the mail. In the mail I am stating in the post how strength > of planets are derived from the navamsha chart keeping in view Parashara > principles. I have not changed that position of mine. Do you find > anywhere in the post that I am saying that aspects can not be seen in > D-charts, in the mail? Strength derived by a planet from navamsha is > different from aspects within a D-chart. > > Posting part of an argument does not make any point in this already > lengthening discussion on whether sages indicated aspects in D- charts or > not. I have also given my personal views as distinct from the sages > said. there is no use in mixing the two and try to show as if I change > my position, if that is what you intend to do. > > I have never imposed my views on others and never have I said that what > I say is the ultimate truth in astrology. > > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of Rashi- > > Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only quoting > > the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is any > > objection full mail will be quoted. > > > > Read He as Parashara. > > > > ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in case > > of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional charts. > > > > Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are > > destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated weak or > > by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously > > states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 Ch. > > 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . > > > > Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart from D-5 > > onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. > > > > I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th part of a > > Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas obtained. > > But think about the minuscule part of the time it will represent on > > the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, and the > > fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The fact > > that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for that > > would be obvious. > > > > Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its method > > to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain > > transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was no > > necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala and most > > of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka > > scheme''. > > > > Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with Mr.Bose > > regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen yourself > > attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date: 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Pradeep, If you could link ishta and kashta bala, avasthas and vimshopaka bala and then read what I have said perhaps it will not be necessary to explain what I have said. Parashara does not indeed talk of change due to planetary aspects, in D-charts but that does not mean he does not talk about specific yogas arising out of these aspects as demonstrated by the Shadvargake shloka. When I say Parashara did not ask us to cast a divisional chart, that is the truth, he does not. But it does not mean he prohibited us from casting such a chart. If you want people to understand that argument between PVR and me, you will have to post all the mails that were exchanged and not only selective portions of it. This sort of jumping away from thread of any argument serves no purpose. Time and again I have differentiated between my personal opinion and what the sage has said. I do not know why you want to quote of what I have said as my personal opinion as being an indication of the sage having never said something. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > You have said , > > 1)Parashara did not ask us to cast a chart while for special lagnas > he does. > > 2)He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > 3)Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > implication the results) of planets. > > If you feel these are not relevant then i have no comment to make. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I fail to see the connection between ishta and kashta bala and > special > > ascendants as well as avasthas and Vimshopaka bala that I am > talking > > about and there being no aspects in D-chart, that you want to imply > I > > have said in the mail. In the mail I am stating in the post how > strength > > of planets are derived from the navamsha chart keeping in view > Parashara > > principles. I have not changed that position of mine. Do you find > > anywhere in the post that I am saying that aspects can not be seen > in > > D-charts, in the mail? Strength derived by a planet from navamsha > is > > different from aspects within a D-chart. > > > > Posting part of an argument does not make any point in this already > > lengthening discussion on whether sages indicated aspects in D- > charts or > > not. I have also given my personal views as distinct from the sages > > said. there is no use in mixing the two and try to show as if I > change > > my position, if that is what you intend to do. > > > > I have never imposed my views on others and never have I said that > what > > I say is the ultimate truth in astrology. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of > Rashi- > > > Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only > quoting > > > the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is any > > > objection full mail will be quoted. > > > > > > Read He as Parashara. > > > > > > ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in > case > > > of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional charts. > > > > > > Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the > signs > > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > > > He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he > does > > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > > > As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are > > > destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated weak or > > > by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously > > > states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 Ch. > > > 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . > > > > > > Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart from > D-5 > > > onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. > > > > > > I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th part > of a > > > Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas obtained. > > > But think about the minuscule part of the time it will represent > on > > > the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, and the > > > fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The > fact > > > that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for that > > > would be obvious. > > > > > > Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its > method > > > to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain > > > transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was no > > > necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala and > most > > > of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka > > > scheme''. > > > > > > Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with Mr.Bose > > > regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen yourself > > > attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date: > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji I will post all the mails relating to this thread tommorrow.Then let members decide. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > If you could link ishta and kashta bala, avasthas and vimshopaka bala > and then read what I have said perhaps it will not be necessary to > explain what I have said. Parashara does not indeed talk of change due > to planetary aspects, in D-charts but that does not mean he does not > talk about specific yogas arising out of these aspects as demonstrated > by the Shadvargake shloka. > > When I say Parashara did not ask us to cast a divisional chart, that is > the truth, he does not. But it does not mean he prohibited us from > casting such a chart. If you want people to understand that argument > between PVR and me, you will have to post all the mails that were > exchanged and not only selective portions of it. > > This sort of jumping away from thread of any argument serves no purpose. > Time and again I have differentiated between my personal opinion and > what the sage has said. I do not know why you want to quote of what I > have said as my personal opinion as being an indication of the sage > having never said something. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > You have said , > > > > 1)Parashara did not ask us to cast a chart while for special lagnas > > he does. > > > > 2)He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > 3)Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the signs > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > If you feel these are not relevant then i have no comment to make. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I fail to see the connection between ishta and kashta bala and > > special > > > ascendants as well as avasthas and Vimshopaka bala that I am > > talking > > > about and there being no aspects in D-chart, that you want to imply > > I > > > have said in the mail. In the mail I am stating in the post how > > strength > > > of planets are derived from the navamsha chart keeping in view > > Parashara > > > principles. I have not changed that position of mine. Do you find > > > anywhere in the post that I am saying that aspects can not be seen > > in > > > D-charts, in the mail? Strength derived by a planet from navamsha > > is > > > different from aspects within a D-chart. > > > > > > Posting part of an argument does not make any point in this already > > > lengthening discussion on whether sages indicated aspects in D- > > charts or > > > not. I have also given my personal views as distinct from the sages > > > said. there is no use in mixing the two and try to show as if I > > change > > > my position, if that is what you intend to do. > > > > > > I have never imposed my views on others and never have I said that > > what > > > I say is the ultimate truth in astrology. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of > > Rashi- > > > > Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only > > quoting > > > > the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is any > > > > objection full mail will be quoted. > > > > > > > > Read He as Parashara. > > > > > > > > ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in > > case > > > > of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional charts. > > > > > > > > Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the > > signs > > > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > > > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > > > > > He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he > > does > > > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > > > > > As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are > > > > destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated weak or > > > > by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously > > > > states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 Ch. > > > > 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . > > > > > > > > Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart from > > D-5 > > > > onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. > > > > > > > > I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th part > > of a > > > > Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas obtained. > > > > But think about the minuscule part of the time it will represent > > on > > > > the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, and the > > > > fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The > > fact > > > > that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for that > > > > would be obvious. > > > > > > > > Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its > > method > > > > to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain > > > > transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was no > > > > necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala and > > most > > > > of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka > > > > scheme''. > > > > > > > > Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with Mr.Bose > > > > regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen yourself > > > > attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release Date: > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Dear Pradeep, You may do that. I hope the readers learn about how many factors are to be viewed jointly before deciding about accepting a concept not clearly mentioned in the texts. Even if they think I am wrong, I am sure they will have learnt something from the discussion. Only, do not send another batch of longish mails on the subject as I may not be able to respond to all of them. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > I will post all the mails relating to this thread tommorrow.Then let > members decide. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > If you could link ishta and kashta bala, avasthas and vimshopaka > bala > > and then read what I have said perhaps it will not be necessary to > > explain what I have said. Parashara does not indeed talk of change > due > > to planetary aspects, in D-charts but that does not mean he does > not > > talk about specific yogas arising out of these aspects as > demonstrated > > by the Shadvargake shloka. > > > > When I say Parashara did not ask us to cast a divisional chart, > that is > > the truth, he does not. But it does not mean he prohibited us from > > casting such a chart. If you want people to understand that > argument > > between PVR and me, you will have to post all the mails that were > > exchanged and not only selective portions of it. > > > > This sort of jumping away from thread of any argument serves no > purpose. > > Time and again I have differentiated between my personal opinion > and > > what the sage has said. I do not know why you want to quote of what > I > > have said as my personal opinion as being an indication of the sage > > having never said something. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > You have said , > > > > > > 1)Parashara did not ask us to cast a chart while for special > lagnas > > > he does. > > > > > > 2)He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he > does > > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > > > 3)Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the > signs > > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( and by > > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > > > If you feel these are not relevant then i have no comment to make. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I fail to see the connection between ishta and kashta bala and > > > special > > > > ascendants as well as avasthas and Vimshopaka bala that I am > > > talking > > > > about and there being no aspects in D-chart, that you want to > imply > > > I > > > > have said in the mail. In the mail I am stating in the post how > > > strength > > > > of planets are derived from the navamsha chart keeping in view > > > Parashara > > > > principles. I have not changed that position of mine. Do you > find > > > > anywhere in the post that I am saying that aspects can not be > seen > > > in > > > > D-charts, in the mail? Strength derived by a planet from > navamsha > > > is > > > > different from aspects within a D-chart. > > > > > > > > Posting part of an argument does not make any point in this > already > > > > lengthening discussion on whether sages indicated aspects in D- > > > charts or > > > > not. I have also given my personal views as distinct from the > sages > > > > said. there is no use in mixing the two and try to show as if I > > > change > > > > my position, if that is what you intend to do. > > > > > > > > I have never imposed my views on others and never have I said > that > > > what > > > > I say is the ultimate truth in astrology. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > In 2004,in the context of shri PVR Narasimha Rao's opinion of > > > Rashi- > > > > > Varga Mapping Logic - you have said the following -I am only > > > quoting > > > > > the portion,which is relevant to our discussion.If there is > any > > > > > objection full mail will be quoted. > > > > > > > > > > Read He as Parashara. > > > > > > > > > > ''He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in > > > case > > > > > of special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9) in case of Divisional > charts. > > > > > > > > > > Again while use of Vargas shlokas 52 and 53 indicate that the > > > signs > > > > > occupied are to be considered to arrive at the strengths ( > and by > > > > > implication the results) of planets. > > > > > > > > > > He does not indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as > he > > > does > > > > > in various other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts. > > > > > > > > > > As a matter of fact he tells in shloka 53 that the yogas are > > > > > destroyed by the planet being combust,defeated,debilitated > weak or > > > > > by being in bad Avasthas. In case of Avasthas he unambiguously > > > > > states that the Avasthas change every 6 degrees vide shloka 3 > Ch. > > > > > 45 " GrahaavashthaadhyaayaH " . > > > > > > > > > > Now how can one find out the Avasthas in a divisional chart > from > > > D-5 > > > > > onwards and still be true to Parashara, is the moot question. > > > > > > > > > > I know that for argument's sake it could be said that 60th > part > > > of a > > > > > Rasi(1/2 amsha) be proportionately divided and avasthas > obtained. > > > > > But think about the minuscule part of the time it will > represent > > > on > > > > > the back ground of difficulty in correcting of Birth time, > and the > > > > > fact of this argument not holding water would be apparent. The > > > fact > > > > > that Parashara does not indicate this is and the reason for > that > > > > > would be obvious. > > > > > > > > > > Even in case of Ishta and Kashta bala its application and its > > > method > > > > > to other Vargas is not mentioned. Again, had it been plain > > > > > transformation of Rasi degrees to Varga divisions, there was > no > > > > > necessity of giving a differential scale of Vimshopaka bala > and > > > most > > > > > of the Vargas would not have been given 1/2 Bala in Vimshopaka > > > > > scheme''. > > > > > > > > > > Can you pls tell me are you not in principle agreeing with > Mr.Bose > > > > > regarding Vimshopaka etc.In other instances i have seen > yourself > > > > > attributing Graha drishti to Longitudinal degrees. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release > Date: > > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.