tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.comments2023-03-13T05:15:37.984-07:00Mrs. Betty TracyMrs Betty Tracyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comBlogger300125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-21748357695623941222020-04-22T08:32:21.536-07:002020-04-22T08:32:21.536-07:00I adore your websites way of raising the awareness...I adore your websites way of raising the awareness on your readers. <a href="https://www.52bliss.com/?product=rush%e5%8e%9f%e5%91%b3%e8%86%8f&v=9ebd726abd3c" rel="nofollow">Rush購買</a>RobertKReedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280510218664328816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-28580901050045221722017-07-17T09:31:06.855-07:002017-07-17T09:31:06.855-07:00More thinking...
Successful blogs are generally ab...More thinking...<br />Successful blogs are generally about one subject. That is what i have set up for me, but with ADD and life in general, that means a blog can be neglected for a year or so, then posted on daily for a couple weeks, then neglected again, as my attention wanders. <br /><br />The most consistent advise in making successful blogs is "Be Yourself." Well, "Myself" is eclectic, scatter brained, and distractable. As a homemaking, homeschooling, writing, drawing, singing, gardening, cooking, baking, book-keeping, teaching, Assistant pastor's wife, pastor's daughter, Servant of God, how can I be anything else? <br /><br />Do I really care about my blog(s) being successful? Obviously not too much, no. I know how to do it and recognize I do have the basic talents necessary. But I'm not interested in putting that much time into it....them....whatever. <br /><br />So, buck conventional wisdom? Especially when I don't really care that much about numbers and such? <br /><br />Hmmm......Mrs Betty Tracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-55146992867887957582017-04-25T22:17:26.280-07:002017-04-25T22:17:26.280-07:00This is progress! Lovely, lovely progress, and I&#...This is progress! Lovely, lovely progress, and I'm really glad you're able to let go of things more easily now. :) Even if one of those things is blogging. At least as long as you post something every few months so I know you're still around!<br /><br />I /do/ want pictures of the mustangs, though, if you have any. 'cause /horsies/, that's why.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-59361274937384601722017-04-12T17:22:17.684-07:002017-04-12T17:22:17.684-07:00Y'know, "humans are greedy for money and...Y'know, "humans are greedy for money and power" is a GREAT phrase. If I ever need a one-second answer to a history question, that's what I'll say. 'cause it's almost guaranteed to be right! Incomplete, of course, but still. :) Good answer, Betty! <br /><br />I dunno, though. I used to be drawn to libertarianism, but nowadays I think it would be an awful idea. Here's why:<br /><br />For me, war-fighting is /the/ core function of the state. And modern warfare -- which is high-tech and complex and information-dense -- requires a *much* bigger and more intrusive state than libertarians want. <br /><br />It's no longer enough to give your boys a rifle and throw 'em in the trenches; having a top-flight military takes huge investments in R&D. And that in turn means that national security *requires* states to have a functioning, widely accessible system of higher education, one that can produce the engineers and programmers and scientists who'll *do* the R&D. <br /><br />So to keep our military strong, the state kinda has to have its fingers in a lot of pies just for higher education alone. So I think you need a high level of state *capacity* to wage war successfully, but that also means you're gonna have to live with a lot of state *sprawl*-- you can't have one without the other. <br /><br />Or maybe a better way to put it is: there's a level of state capacity below which *you may not sink* if you want to wage war with any success. And my gut instinct is that libertarianism would put us waaaay below that level. So I'm opposed to it. <br /><br />TL;DR I think the think the United States of America would *wipe the floor* with the Libertarian States of America, and I don't think it would even be close.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-14114685331297267542017-04-04T07:54:47.582-07:002017-04-04T07:54:47.582-07:00Glad to know most aren't thinking this way. I ...Glad to know most aren't thinking this way. I wonder sometimes....<br /><br />My dad worked with some men from Sweden once. They told him it was illegal for them to quit their jobs without government permission, and I know when Hitler took over Austria (and I would assume other countries) they instituted food vouchers. You had to have a job or be enrolled in a government school to get a voucher, so essentially it was illegal for anyone to be a stay at home parent, unemployed, early retiree, self employed without government approval, etc. as well as homeschool or send your child to private school. So there is precedence to be a bit concerned about these types of statements. <br /><br />My answer to why governments have moved to doing more is because governments are made up of humans and humans are greedy for money and power. They will always increase control over others if they can. <br /><br />If you look at the larger scope of history, you see a constant increase in government power, followed by revolt of some type, then chaos, back to a free society with limited government. <br /><br />Rome fell because the people saw they would have more freedom under their invaders from the north than the oppressive taxes of Rome, and so didn't bother fighting them off. China built that great big wall to keep their enemies out, but the gate keeper left the gate open because he was more oppressed under the Chinese government than he would be under Mongol Hordes. Even in America, it was the oppressive government of England that caused the colonists to revolt and set up a limited government of their own.<br /><br />The second Law of Thermo Dynamics; All systems left to themselves tend toward disintegration. If we are not VERY diligent every government will become a tyranny, simply because humans like to bully others into doing what they think is best. Mrs Betty Tracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-13358229805278038672017-04-04T07:38:21.967-07:002017-04-04T07:38:21.967-07:00Thank you.
Unfortunately, this bug seems to be a ...Thank you.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this bug seems to be a "2 steps forward, 1 step back" kind. Everyone but my 22 yo has had a few days of being very sick (one of the worst sore throats I've ever had), then is well-ish for a few days, then sick again, though not as bad. <br /><br />I'm still coughing, though most of the time I feel better each day. <br /><br />Yes, nurse is a job I do, too. <br /><br />And to top it off, we were supposed to go on a big, long camping trip this week. But we are way too sick to go there. <br /><br />Couldn't anyway. About a month ago, on the way home from a day's outing with the family, the tranny in our big van quit shifting right. We limped it home, and just as we pulled into our drive blue smoke poured out the back end. Unfortunately we have enough experience to know what that meant; dead tranny. <br /><br />Thankfully this time it was in our own drive instead of the freeway coming out of Sacramento doing 70 (the legal speed right there). <br /><br />Fortunately, we still had two weeks and 200 miles left on the warranty for our last fix. <br /><br />Unfortunately, when the shop put the fixed tranny back in the van and fired it up, oil blew all over the place. Seems the tranny case was broke. They have had trouble finding a new one, but we are supposed to have it back sometime this week. <br /><br />So, yeah, lots of rest. Way more than we had scheduled or really wanted. Mrs Betty Tracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-40020537988070823532017-03-29T16:00:16.107-07:002017-03-29T16:00:16.107-07:00That would definitely be tyranny *if* it were atte...That would definitely be tyranny *if* it were attempted. But I can tell you that zero percent of my friends would support such a measure. Pretty sure the most common response would be, "uh, people should be free to live the way they want to." <br /><br />I do have a question, though! It seems to me that it used to be the case that government *did* stick to the spheres you outlined -- in fact, the idea of a professional police force is less than 200 years old, so you could argue that your list of core government services is /overbroad/. I mean, it would be a dumb and pointless argument, but I've never let that stop me. ;D<br /><br />So my question is: why didn't states STAY that limited? I mean, in, say, 1500, European states had a really, really minimal reach. Forget about not having a police force; they didn't even have standing /armies/.<br /><br />So what changed? What forces pushed Europe *away* from low state capacity and *towards* stronger and more centralized governments? <br /><br />P.S. Why, yes, this COULD double as an essay question for your kids' next world history course. A really good one, if I do say so myself! You're welcome. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-17570192387334422482017-03-29T12:48:29.000-07:002017-03-29T12:48:29.000-07:00Good grief! I guess you can add "triage nurse...Good grief! I guess you can add "triage nurse" to your many other job titles. :( Hope you're all feeling better by now. Also: that you actually got to /rest/ a bit while you were sick. Silver linings, right?<br /><br />- DavidUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-15918057066675727072017-02-01T07:45:43.153-08:002017-02-01T07:45:43.153-08:00I didn't know that! Thank you:-) I am reading ...I didn't know that! Thank you:-) I am reading through this book again and will likely include this in there. <br /><br />I don't take the Midrash as "Bible" but I do find it interesting to learn what it says. Mrs Betty Tracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-37078313831040286192017-02-01T07:34:10.112-08:002017-02-01T07:34:10.112-08:00Since it's the thought that counts, thank you ...Since it's the thought that counts, thank you very much! We really appreciate it :-)Mrs Betty Tracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294525918990533630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-62595627130892332612017-01-25T12:11:27.759-08:002017-01-25T12:11:27.759-08:00Thanks for posting! I poked at Gen 49 and did a do...Thanks for posting! I poked at Gen 49 and did a double-take at 49:23, where Jacob is describing Joseph's life ("the archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him"). There's a really well-known midrash that Esau would often shoot arrows at Jacob when they were children, and I always thought it was a huuuuuge stretch to get there from the text. <br /><br />But you can at least make a *case* that this verse supports it: Jacob, in old age, is thinking about his childhood experiences and it's creeping into his language. And it's significant that he holds this metaphor back until he gets to his most *accomplished* child (and therefore arguably the one he'd most identify with) -- a son who, it just so happens, was mistreated and betrayed *by his brothers*. Just like Jacob! (If we accept the midrash, anyway.) Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-84109616069399811662016-12-21T10:35:06.217-08:002016-12-21T10:35:06.217-08:00Aw, man. I was gonna buy y'all tickets for Chr...Aw, man. I was gonna buy y'all tickets for Christmas. Fortunately there's another movie coming out in 2017, so the dream can live on. :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-574954629868788112016-12-20T16:07:11.659-08:002016-12-20T16:07:11.659-08:00Yes, it is. In fact we all went to see Rogue One l...Yes, it is. In fact we all went to see Rogue One last Saturday Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-7205548264967434972016-12-20T15:56:50.650-08:002016-12-20T15:56:50.650-08:00Oooooh, test phobia. That's a tough one to con...Oooooh, test phobia. That's a tough one to conquer. But he'll get there! Probably! No guarantees! ... boy, I hope you give better pep talks than I do. <br /><br />Also, question 'cause I'm curious: is Star Wars allowed in your home? <br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-56634085070568059922016-12-17T07:46:16.642-08:002016-12-17T07:46:16.642-08:00Nice to have you back. Blogger changed the dashboa...Nice to have you back. Blogger changed the dashboard, so I just now saw your comment. I have to change some settings to see things earlier. Sorry about that. <br /><br />Dad is doing better, but it is very slow. He is still using a walker, but he did crawl under a pickup a couple days ago, so he is getting there. <br /><br />Child 3 appears to have a severe "test phobia." He is a boringly competent driver until a tester gets in the car. Then he forgets everything he ever knew about driving. So we are still working on that. <br /><br />New verses Old Testament: you are right that the civil law ends with the Old. The New Testament deals entirely with individuals and their relationships with God and each other. Nothing to government (other than the principles of "If you are a boss, treat your servants with kindness because you have to answer to God." This would apply to those in government as well as not). <br /><br />The biggest commands concerning government are "Pray for your leaders." and "Obey those in government as long as they aren't telling you to disobey God, (no matter how stupid the laws they pass are- my addition from context :-D)."<br /><br />Some early Christians, I think, did expect to conquer the world physically, but God had other plans. His aim was/is to conquer hearts. That is far more important and long lasting (like, Eternity) <br /><br />So far, I am actually seeing a surprisingly consistent standard throughout the Law. I really expected more variation. There is a bit of a difference in the penalties for stealing, but otherwise, it appears to be about the same throughout.<br /><br />How I am doing the study at this point is going through Exodus verse by verse (I'm in 23 now) and as I come to each law I google "scripture [relevant law]" It's slow and we have had a bad bout of flue (three weeks!) so I haven't been at it as much as I should be. <br /><br />Hope all is going good :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-76334914500907163752016-11-30T15:13:32.369-08:002016-11-30T15:13:32.369-08:00Hi, Betty! It is of course David. I disappeared; I...Hi, Betty! It is of course David. I disappeared; I've returned; it's what I do. (I mean, there were Reasons [tm] but whatever; there are always reasons, and I'm sorry for just vanishing without saying a word. Though somehow I /thought/ you might keep very, very busy in my absence. And look! You did.)<br /><br />Hope your dad is recovering and your son passed the test. <br /><br />Re. grouping the commandments by theme, that's a very neat idea & I would add that, within each theme, you might want to present them in chronological order. Would be interesting to see what changes over time & in what directions. Also to see what classes of commandment just /stop existing/ in the text as you hit the Old Testament / New Testament boundary.<br /><br />My first thought (though this is informed by stereotype, not detailed knowledge) is that civil law will be almost totally absent from the New Testament. There won't be detailed rules about land transfers or loans or business dealings of any sort. Am I right about that? If so, why do you think that's the case? <br /><br />(For the record: I think it makes perfect sense if -- key word "if" -- the early Christians never expected to be in charge of society. After all, subcultures can have their own /norms/, but not their own /laws/; also, if Christianity had followers all over the Roman Empire, they would have grown up with a pretty wide variety of local practices and customs. That makes it very tough to find a one-size-fits-all approach to law that will feel intuitively right to everyone. But these are secular explanations and I suspect -- and kinda hope! -- you'll say, "No no, you have to ask what are *God's* reasons, which I think are X, Y, and Z.")Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-15458955290163889792016-07-12T14:31:51.555-07:002016-07-12T14:31:51.555-07:00And the last question, if my dad knowingly rented ...And the last question, if my dad knowingly rented to, say, a thief who payed his rent with his takings wouldn't he be partly responsible for that persons thefts? Enabling even? How about a drug dealer? Or lets take something not illegal, a gossip? Doesn't he have a moral obligation to not support evil whenever he can? <br /><br />Of course, most of the time when he rented to people he didn't know them well enough to know if they were moral or not, but if they openly talk about their sins shouldn't he refuse to rent to them? <br /><br />Again we stray into toughy territory. Some Christians come down on one side and some on another. But shouldn't each be responsible before their God? What human, no matter his role in the government, has the right to take the place of God? What if that human is wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-33867184124094152112016-07-12T14:15:50.142-07:002016-07-12T14:15:50.142-07:00Pre anti discrimination laws: "You may not ma...Pre anti discrimination laws: "You may not marry people of differing color no matter how your belief supports it. The government decides who can marry and who doesn't, not you mere ministers."<br /><br />After segregation laws were removed "Marry whoever you want to."<br /><br />Pre gay marriage rulings (few or none of these laws were democratically passed by the way. They were all forced down our throats by the courts.) If you think gay marriage is ok, preform the ceremony. If you don't, don't.<br /><br />Post anti gay laws- "You must marry people of the same sex no matter what your belief is. The government decides who can marry and who doesn't, not you mere ministers."<br /><br />Are we there yet? No. But we will be as soon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-88121184830297673952016-07-12T14:06:02.480-07:002016-07-12T14:06:02.480-07:00"which you of course will disagree with"..."which you of course will disagree with"<br /><br />No, actually, I see both sides of that one. When working for the government its a tough call. My problem is with the intentional trolling for someone to sue and the court judge telling her she answered to him and not the people who elected her. Isn't this a very dangerous president to set? To give a non-elected official the power to overrule the voting public (and yes, I have a problem with this all the way up to the Almighty Supreme Court)?<br /><br />Your example of your job is based solely on anti-christian rhetoric and sorely misinterprets the NT (i.e. "If a man cares not for his own, especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8), but that's not really the point of your example of course. <br /><br />As I said government jobs are a toughy, but should they be? Should the religion of Atheism really be our official religion? Should there be laws being passed that derive only from atheism and not our founding religion of Christianity, especially since more than 70% of Americans call themselves Christian? <br /><br />I agree that this line of thought has ugly consequences, but actually, I don't think the government should have had the right to force businesses to desegregate, not because I believe segregation is good (its evil- God makes of all men one blood Acts 17:26) but because of the power it gives the humans in government to force their opinion on us. I believe the proper course should have been to outlaw government segregation but then let the private sector put the racists out of business or force them to change. That was already happening long before the civil rights movement and would have been far more thorough and effective in the long run.<br /><br />And remember, to the Christian equating homosexuality with African Americans is the same thing as making incest or murder the same thing as being Asian. Homosexuality is a choice, or more accurately a series of choices, and not a genetic disorder or condition. It is the logic fallacy called "equivocation." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-1048946420819434562016-06-14T13:17:14.391-07:002016-06-14T13:17:14.391-07:00In the same vein as my last question -- can you ex...In the same vein as my last question -- can you explain a little more about how your dad would be "enabling" gay people (or for that matter an unmarried couple) by renting to them? <br /><br />As an outsider, what I hear you saying is: "If Dad rents to them, he'll be partly responsible for their sex life." Is that really what you meant, though? Help a brother out.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-51589383557630489552016-06-14T12:07:58.436-07:002016-06-14T12:07:58.436-07:00Also, I'm trying to flesh out your line of thi...Also, I'm trying to flesh out your line of thinking here. Could you complete this for me?<br /><br />"No minister is forced to marry interracial couples. But gay marriage will be different because ______." Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-59181566019864777682016-06-14T11:50:42.546-07:002016-06-14T11:50:42.546-07:00If you're right that the Kim Davis couple went...If you're right that the Kim Davis couple went to three county clerks, then sure, they were looking for someone to sue. But Davis was still in the wrong -- which you of course will disagree with. So let's find out how you would apply your position to a different set of facts. <br /><br />I work in child support enforcement, and the majority of our clients (I would guess 70% or more) were never married to each other. Now, let's say I shared your dad's scruples re: "enabling" unmarried fornicators. <br /><br />Could I then just opt out of handling 70% of my caseload? And for the remaining 30%, could I call up all of the divorced couples and ask whether they divorced for sexual immorality, because only then would I deign to handle their cases? <br /><br />The clients would, I'm pretty sure, find that intrusive and demeaning. Does my right to religious liberty outweigh /their/ right to receive my services without being harassed or humiliated? Or should I find another line of work?<br /><br />How does the Court of Betty rule? :)<br /><br />P.S. On wedding cakes and flowers: this is a much tougher call, and I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, a business should be free to turn down someone's money. But on the other hand, the same logic would dictate that we should have let segregated businesses stay whites-only because, hey, they shouldn't be FORCED to serve anyone. So I recognize that this line of argument has some very ugly consequences when a business refuses to serve a whole class of people. Like I said: it's tough.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08826885388686447722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-85889979725827889172016-06-08T16:34:07.986-07:002016-06-08T16:34:07.986-07:00So give me a good reason that gay couple went to t...So give me a good reason that gay couple went to three other county clerks to get marriage licenses before finding one who wouldn't on religious principles if it wasn't to attack Christianity. <br /><br />If I wanted a professionally decorated cake and the business owner for whatever reason didn't want to do one for me but offered the name of one who would, I would go to the willing business (and reward them with my money). I wouldn't WANT someone who didn't want to serve me to do a cake for me, especially for something as important as a wedding. So why have these shop owner been taken to court? Why weren't they simple boycotted and put out of business? <br /><br />The Constitution says we have the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association. On what basis, then, are business owners being forced to associate with those they don't want to? Do you give up your first amendment rights just because you open a business? Or are you saying that a person has the right to shop anywhere he wants to and dictate to the shop owner any commands he wants to (outside of monetary compensations). "Hey plumber, go build me a tool shed or I will sue you!"<br /><br />If an atheist tattoo artist objected to doing a cross on someone's arm, can you see anyone taking him to court over it, much less winning? He has the right to do what art he wants to. Why don't christian cake decorators have the same rights?<br /><br />So, in the first part of the last century it was illegal for a minister to preform an interracial marriage. The government dictated that he was not allowed to hold the belief that it was ok. That wrong was justly corrected and ministers can now marry those of different races if they wish (and most do of course. No body wants those that don't at an interracial wedding anyway). <br /><br />Today, any minister who wants to preform a gay marriage certainly can, but no one is forced to. But for how long? The courts are going towards removing that freedom. They have for cake decorators, venue owners, t-shirt makers. Why wouldn't they go after ministers? They already are in England and Canada, forbidding the preaching in public that homosexuality is wrong, at least on street corners. <br /><br />You say I sound paranoid, and maybe I am. It gets worse the more I read history and see what has happened in other countries, then see the trend here. Imagine if these law suits were being aimed at some uniquely held Jewish belief and only Jews were being taken to court. Wouldn't you be a bit alarmed? Wouldn't you be a bit paranoid? <br /><br />So, yes, I know I sound crazy, and not the good kind of crazy either. But I'm not alone. Many others are seeing this too. Are we spending too much time wearing tin foil hats? I hope so. I really, really hope so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-30856502241614467282016-06-08T15:54:10.221-07:002016-06-08T15:54:10.221-07:00Hubby watched a Youtube video a couple nights ago ...Hubby watched a Youtube video a couple nights ago that showed a policeman heading straight for a street preacher and arresting him for disturbing the peace... right in the middle of a bunch of street performers. The preacher was disturbing the peace but the performers weren't? (and yes, I realize that something was up for the camera to be on from the start)<br /><br />While it is true that most people just want to be let alone it is also true that Christians have been persecuted from the beginning for our faith. It is offensive to others, especially atheists, and always has been. <br /><br />I had to turn my FB page to private because of the atheists trolling my page. I completely deleted my Twitter account for the same reason. My son who is passionate about Star Wars has completely quit following any Google/YouTube threads on the subject because of the hate he gets daily due to his faith. He is not interested in converting anyone when he is on these sites. He just wants to talk about Anikan and Luke Skywalker. But the minute they find out he is a Christian they go after him. <br /><br />Though you are certainly tolerant and curious, you are the only atheist I have had dealings with on the entire internet that has even been polite. <br /><br />Is this proof of anything? No, of course not. It is only my own personal experience. Maybe I'm just unlucky. <br /><br />How do you pass laws that make it ok for football parties (never heard a quiet one myself) but not ok for Bible studies? Doesn't that require a religious bias to start with? Shouldn't a truly unbiased law be worded something like "No gathering of more than X number of people will be allowed"? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22857283.post-32742867276542636982016-06-08T15:31:46.145-07:002016-06-08T15:31:46.145-07:00Probably.
Probably. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com