From: Azoth Area: Thelema To: Kreizenski 1 Jul 92 07:01:00 Subject: Does anyone know UpdReq 93, Kreiz! K > AZ\>Hmmm. Serpent's will shortly be listing an original 1929 MTP (subscriber K > AZ\>booklets rebound in hard covers about 1931) for about $700, if you're Apologies; I mis-typed that $700: should be $400. The #14 list has it for $425, and Steve might be persuaded to do an installment plan. K > Sheesh! Are they gonna put out a book that I can buy with one paycheck? Moral: get bigger paychecks! K > I hope that these are hard-cover pricing. I'm a firm believer in K > paper-back.... Definitely hard-cover. K > a soft Book 4? As opposed to a dominating Book 4? Nah, more like a detumescent Book 4.... 93 93/93 ___ X BABBLE v1.0 X There's no place like CHOAM, there's no place like.... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Azoth Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 1 Jul 92 07:01:02 Subject: Re: Creation/Destruction UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. JN> >Magick does, however, provide an ever JN> >expanding corpus of practical technique whereby the most essential symbol JN> >sets can be explored, as it were, in situ... JN> The problem I have with that -- one that is particularly noticable in JN> the Angelic (Enochian) system -- is that the manner in which a force My own work in Enochian admittedly tends to support your thesis. I was eventually forced to conclude that the Tablets, far from being simple encryptions of Elemental energy were instead something which might be more profitably viewed as 'accumulators' or batteries (of a sort), which might manifest the stored or channeled force of a working in any of a variety of forms, the Elemental being only one, as are the sub-elemental, and the sefirotic. It is possible to 'overlay' nearly any symbol-system on the Tablets, and, using the Keys, achieve the 'expected' manifestation. Bloody confusing, at first, but the Tablets seem to be rather more (and less) that what they've been described. The Keys, as well, but in a different way.... JN> manifests to us, the way in which magickal entities present themselves, JN> and the way in which we individually interpret our experiences, are all JN> largely dependent on our nature as individuals. And on the kind of JN> intellectual and experiential baggage we already carry around. We JN> abstract certain aspects from the experience, ignore others, and apply JN> labels to those abstractions just as we do for "mundane" experience. It would appear, though, that many spiritual/magickal experiences are had with a sufficient commonality of content to permit at least tentative identification, given the inevitable 'humanity' of the personalities involved, on this Side anyway. This becomes even more successful when the _seemingly_ inevitable egoboo element is factored out. The personal impact of many spiritual/magickal experiences is enough to inflate an ego to prophet- or god-hood if the manifest stupidity of such a stance is not fully grasped at the outset. I, personally, simply do not buy prophets or living gods as likely phenomena. 'There is no god but man' seems clear enough on this, despite being pronounced by someone who was clearly uninterested in his own humanity. The medium and the message are, for better or worse, inextricably entwined. 'We must be cautious...' JN> Even at the best of times, we haven't eliminated the problem, but simply JN> chopped out one or two levels of abstraction over what a purely JN> intellectual philosopher uses. Hmmmm. I regard that 'one or two levels' gone as a major improvement! JN> Incidentally, I also view this as part of the ongoing act of divine JN> creation mentioned earlier. Many of the thoughts generated in the minds JN> of magicians (and everyone else, for that matter) are an unconscious JN> response to the inflow of creative energy. The exchange of thoughts JN> between them in discussions of this sort -- when viewed en masse -- JN> constitute the "working through" of that energy on one plane or another. And here I thought it was just me.... JN> Hmm. I think I understand this, though I follow a different approach in JN> practice. But the perceptions behind my own approach are more than my JN> poor brain wants to deal with at the moment. I've been working on JN> backlogged replies for hours, and it's rebelling. Perhaps next time. By all means! Love is the Law, love under will. ___ X BABBLE v1.0 X My God.....It's full of Stars..... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Kreizenski Area: Thelema To: Neuro Sonic 3 Jul 92 11:28:00 Subject: Liber AL UpdReq NS\>I for one have doubts as to Aiwass's existence as a NS\>separate entity from Crowley, but 1) I wasn't there, and Crowley himself, in his later years, decuded that AIWASS was NOT a separate entity, but his Holy Guardian Angel, which is a piece of him. Or, to couch it in the correct terms, he is a piece of it. My thoughts on the matter are that a person (individual) is the manifestation of part of the HGA, the part that descends from the heavens to partake of life. For the Angel descendeth in manifestation, and forsook even his true self..... all in the name of Life. * OLX 2.2 * ... ... Pepperoni Lust: The Vision and the Noid. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Kreizenski Area: Thelema To: Gerald Del Campo 3 Jul 92 11:32:02 Subject: Re: Just another run by UpdReq GDC\>> FA> How many Thelemites does it take to screw in a lightbulb? GDC\>> None...screwing in lightbulbs is for slaves. GDC\> SC> Heck, find me a lightbulb big enough... Besides, some of us like GDC\> SC> those sorts of diversions. :-) GDC\>Yeah, I know what you mean ;) I wish I could remember who it was I stole GDC\>that quote from. The Baphomet Breeze had a "how many GDC\>Thelemites does it take to screw in a light bulb" contest. GDC\>Needless to say it produced quite a few hilarrious results Q: How many Discordians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Why is my hair crawling? What are these bugs? What is Love? * OLX 2.2 * ..When I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails ... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Steven Craig Area: Thelema To: Max Delysid 3 Jul 92 12:37:08 Subject: RE: Re: Eight Cabala UpdReq Might you, or someone else, be so kind as to enlighten the ignorant regarding the Bahir? This is something I've never even heard of before, but it sounds rather interesting. 93 93/93, Steve 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Steven Craig Area: Thelema To: Gerald Del Campo 3 Jul 92 12:39:18 Subject: Re: DMT UpdReq I just wanted to add that I found out that "Teste Tones" by The Anti Group is distributed by Soleilmoon... I really want to find a copy of the CD now, because a) it would undoubtedly sound better than the tape I have and b)the CD apparently comes with a 20-page booklet of technical information regarding the making of the album. 93 93/93, Steve 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Steven Craig Area: Thelema To: Gerald Del Campo 3 Jul 92 12:42:58 Subject: Re: Care Bears UpdReq > species) does not write letters. Instead, it seems that > most "laws" which are of a spiritual nature must be channeled (I > hate this word) through some man or woman. It has been so with > EVERY spiritual text. >> Granted, Crowley was biased. But was he more biased than any other > individual who "channels" a work? The fact that Crowley squeezed > it out does not make the book unworthy of trust any more than any > other "holy book". Would you have felt better about it if some > Jesus type who was free from "sin" had written it? Who WOULD you > trust? While I may find worthwhile insight and illumination from any holy book, be it the Book of the Law or the Book of Mormon, I think the attitude of Caveat Emptor applies in all cases. The most worthwhile holy books are those which we write ourselves; these are not to be trusted implicitly either, but they do tend to be more relevant. Also, as for all spiritual work being "channelled", I consider William Blake, Robert Heinlein, and the Velvet Underground tape playing in the background to be as potentially "spiritual" as those big leather tomes that people are so fond of grovelling beneath. In my opinion, any work of art qualifies as "holy"; the artist is a truer prophet than those which the churches espouse, and is capable of getting the goods from Hoor-Par-Kraat without need of some praeternatural punk acting as middleman. :-) 93 93/93, Steve 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Kreizenski Area: Thelema To: Azoth 3 Jul 92 12:41:00 Subject: Re: Creation/Destruction UpdReq AZ\>is not fully grasped at the outset. I, personally, simply do not buy AZ\>prophets or living gods as likely phenomena. 'There is no god but man' AZ\>seems clear enough on this, despite being pronounced by someone who AZ\>was clearly uninterested in his own humanity. I was profoundly struck by Crowley's description of one of his visions... where he walked up a steep hill to find a circle of robed Ancient Ones. When prompted for a password, he uttered "There is no God." This was repeated around the circle, until it was returned to him. When he had uttered it, he thought of it as a God-Rebellious statement. When it was returned to him, the same words meant something altogether different.... * OLX 2.2 * Do What Thou Wilt...... EVERYTHING THAT THOU WILT !! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Azoth Area: Thelema To: Max Delysid 2 Jul 92 07:02:00 Subject: RE: Re: Eight Cabala UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. MD> Azo> Sophia), much as described in the _Bahir_, where Binah is MD> Azo> referenced as the _Root_ of the Tree. This provides a very MD> Azo> suggestive correlation, with Nuit at the top of the Tree, Hadit at MD> Azo> Malkuth (there are some interesting bits in the _Bahir_ which might MD> Azo> be seen to suggest this) and Horus living around Tiphareth. Now MD> yay! another bahir freak! MD> you have found baphomet in the tree, natch??? I've always found Baphomet happily torched at Yesod.... MD> i personally have found the system laid out in the bahir to be much more MD> 'thelemic' then the typical yetziratic tree... MD> (too bad i dont know more hebrew!) There are some very suggestive elements in _Bahir_ which open alternative ways and means for exploring the Paths, both Day and Night Side. Doesn't exactly correlate with the 'pigeon-hole' approach to Qabala, but then, neither do parts of _Sepher_Yetzirah_, considered without all the later, _Zohar_ oriented commentary. MD> some work i have been involved in is using the tree model as outlined in MD> the bahir and attributing to it a gematria etc derived from the Class A MD> holy books. an excerpt will be published in TOPY Broadcast #3. I'll look forward to your work. MD> too bad crowley never got his mits on the bahir, i would love to see what MD> he would have done with it! Things ought to get interesting when the old boy shows up again. Unless I miss my guess, he'll eventually be appreciated for having taken magic at least a quantum level higher. With the info-explosion and the availability of vast amounts of Tantric and other material, both procedural and artistic, someone of his daemonic intensity ought to have a field day. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi alone would have sent him laughing into the Night! Love is the Law, love under will. ___ X BABBLE v1.0 X There is no law beyond. Do what thou wilt. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Frater Almost 3 Jul 92 11:17:06 Subject: Re: Care Bears Rec'd UpdReq >You don't quite seem to understand.... You see, to hear the >voice of God is not like hearing some-one speak.... It >convey's what It wants to convey in purely Symbolic Terms >with NO WORDS WHATSOEVER! (Nope, not even in Enochian!) >God speaks via symbol. >Thus, the Liber AL is still Holy as it urges one on to >discovering it's message for oneself ("Do what thou >Wilt....") That much is apparent. It is quite plain to >anyone competent to work The Magick of Light. Pax. 93 I hate it when people imply that I am incompetent just because I appear to disagree with them. I particularly hate it when they do it While Speaking In Capitalized Words. What arrogance! What incredibly juvenile snobbery! Next thing, you'll be saying "Anyone who disagrees with Me is not an Initiate". (I see you DID say just that, in a message to Nekhekh.) Having gotten that out of my system..... I wish my off-line reader had a facility for cumulative saves. I've forgotten what my exact words to you were. Unlike you, o wondrous child of Thelema, I am capable of making mistakes, of mis-stating an idea, and of leaving an idea incomplete, especially when I am tired. So let me re-state and elaborate on what I think I said: First, a clarification: When I normally use the word "symbol", I use it to include both the words of everyday language and those other sorts (glyphs, images, gestures, and whatnot) that are the working tools of magick and the cabala. But for purposes of this message, I'll use it as referring to only the latter type. I've encountered many thousands of "mysteries" expressed in symbolic terms over the years, including those in Liber AL, and there is not a one of them that -- once understood (emphasize this) -- could not be expressed in plain terms. Of course, the "plain" terms are sometimes just as opaque to those without the experience as was the original symbol. But not always, or even most of the time. I have also encountered many "mysteries" expressed in plain terms. And I've had just as many flashes of insight, just as many leaps to higher levels, just as many contacts with the divine by using these as I have using the sort of symbol you prefer. Neither can I evaluate either one as being inherently "superior" in terms of its influence on my overall picture of the magickal universe. No matter which I happened to have used in a particular place, it is just a convenient "marker" for something that is neither symbol nor word. Based on my experience, I find it perfectly reasonable to conceive of someone achieving a very high level of initiation using either words or symbols alone. I also find it conceivable that a person could achieve an equally high level of initiation without using anything connected with magick, mysticism, or spiritual work, in either words OR symbols. To me, saying one or the other is superior, or saying magicians have a way of attainment inherently superior to non-magicians, is nothing more than chauvinistic, self-serving ego-food. But since you've already decided that I'm an ignorant, uninitiated fool, no doubt you'll dismiss this opinion as unworthy of consideration. * SLMR 2.1a * What does it all mean, Mr. Natural? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Kreizenski 3 Jul 92 14:27:08 Subject: Re: Care Bears UpdReq Oh, Goddess! We're back talking General Semantics again! I state a preference, admitting in advance that it is a personal prejudice, and STILL everybody jumps on me! ;-) >Think on this. Where do you learn the English Language? You learn it >from speaking to friends, to relatives, from reading, from the arts, >from discussions on this board, etc etc etc. >Language has been (often enough) pointed out to be an abitrary grouping >of sounds (verbal) and characters (written) agreed upon by mutual >concensus. Language is NOT a natural function of the brain, although it >works with the the natural functions of organization inherent in the >conscious mind. Speaking and using language IS a _natural_ function of the human brain, as a couple of generations of psychologists, neurologists, neurobiologists, et.al. have more than adequately demonstrated. Your argument here doesn't prove differently. It just says that the _structures_of_the_languages_we_use_ are arbitrary, a fact that I have always been more than willing to admit. >What do you expect a person to write in? A language un-beknownst to all? >No, the phrophet will write in his own tongue, in his own blend of >expression, brought about by his life experiences, and his education in >expression. But there are levels and levels to our individual ways of using language. The way I write here is not the way I wrote as a bureaucrat, nor is it the way I write user instructions for computer programs. And even within the limited field of magick, some of the stuff I write is in a highly personalized symbology, and some of it is written for other people to understand. The same holds true for the stuff I "receive" as the result of invocations, etc. Some of it is highly personal, some of it is symbological but oriented towards a larger audience, and some of it is given in plain language. The latter two are well within my personal capabilities for language use, but that doesn't keep it from being immediately comprehensible by others, or at least translatable into something comprensible in terms of their own experience. Since Crowley was certainly more facile at using language than I am, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that the message in Liber AL could have been presented in a clearer form. * SLMR 2.1a * My reality check just bounced. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Gerald Del Campo 3 Jul 92 14:15:14 Subject: Re: Care Bears UpdReq Jeez! What's with this place? My inconsequential throwaway lines get everybody up in arms, and the important stuff gets nary a comment. Some people -- not necessarily you, Gerald -- have been reacting like fundamentalists would to the suggestion that the King James Bible might have some incorrect translations. >God (or what ever it is that is responsible for the psycho/spiritual >evolution of the species) does not write letters. Instead, >it seems that most "laws" which are of a spiritual nature >must be channeled (I hate this word) through some man or >woman. It has been so with EVERY spiritual text. Yes, new spiritual laws are generally "channeled". (I don't like that word, either, but can't think of a better one.) That's NOT, repeat NOT, what I have been arguing about here. What I have been arguing about is essentially an aesthetic and practical issue: Do new revelations have to be expressed in an obscure and idiosyncratic sort of short-code? Or could the spiritual sources just as easily present them in a more direct form? If so, which is preferable? My answer to the first two questions is that it is not necessary to couch new truths in obscure symbols. In fact, nothing could be more plainly stated than the core truth of Liber AL: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." What is mysterious or symbolic about that? However, there are many other places in the book where obscure symbology IS used, and I don't see any reason why those points couldn't have been expressed in just as clear a form as "Do what thou wilt". The last question is a matter of aesthetics and individual preference, and thus has no definite answer. But arguing about matters of taste can be as much fun as any other sort of argument. >Granted, Crowley was biased. But was he more biased than >any other individual who "channels" a work? The fact that >Crowley squeezed it out does not make the book unworthy of >trust any more than any other "holy book". Would you have >felt better about it if some Jesus type who was free from >"sin" had written it? Who WOULD you trust? I wouldn't trust ANY alleged holy book, no matter who it came through. I don't even trust those "channelings" I have done myself, where I could be certain of the exalted nature of the beings involved. This involves a point I've been trying to get across here for quite some time. For some reason it has been neglected or misinterpreted by most of the respondents. But I'll keep saying it anyway: I don't have any disagreement at all with the statement "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." The only sane course for anyone to follow in life is to discover one's own true nature, and, to the extent that you understand it, to express it fully in action and thought. I was trying to live by this dictum long before I encountered Thelema or Crowley. But it is my view that a complete and thorough adherence to the principle of "Do what thou wilt" requires, DEMANDS, that the individual be the absolute, ultimate and final arbiter of their own Will. NO external authority, no matter how holy, no matter how much more evolved, has any right to demand of the person anything that is not in accordance with the individual's true nature. And the individual has a complete and unalterable right to reject any course of action, any belief, any authority, that they do not see as being in accord with their own True Will. This should hold true no matter what the nature of the external authority. Even if some ultimate God Of All Creation were to suddenly appear surrounded by infinite ranks of angels, all of them radiating spiritual power, and demand something of the individual that was not in accord with his Will, the individual still has the right to reject that demand. And it applies even more to such lesser beings as Aiwass and Crowley. You don't need any authority but yourself, any guide but yourself, controlling or directing the course of your spiritual development. If you are really working to learn and do your Will, then the universe will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need WITHOUT demanding that you submit to anyone else's authority. I see this philosophy as being the natural extension of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." When I criticize Crowley, Liber AL, or other people's presentations of Thelema, it is precisely because their statements violate the principle of "Do what thou wilt". I want to get people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, and to develop their own, _individual_ standards of judgement. I want them to become aware of the areas where their opinions are second-hand, based on a submissive reaction to some spiritual authority instead of being truly their own. I want them to stop thinking that they are "superior" because they have given uncritical adherence to someone else's ideas. This is the primary purpose of most of my critical remarks here. * SLMR 2.1a * [A]bort [R]etry [I]gnore [S]ay Kaddish 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Gerald Del Campo 3 Jul 92 14:27:16 Subject: Re: POLITICAL stupidity UpdReq >I think giving people the rights to chose their own laws >(as in Duty), doing away with the stupid ones (jaywalking, >pot-smoking, etc) and only enforcing the ones which are >obviously in violation of Thelemic principle, i.e., >interfering with the will of others; is the only answer. Yeah! Another idea I had but didn't mention was a constitutional amendment saying that no penalties of any sort could be imposed against a person for violating a law, if it could be shown that his own actions did not cause any direct injury to another person or his property against that other person's will. No guilt-by-concatenation "crimes", like various "conspiracy" statutes. And balancing that, we could have an amendment saying that any law or regulation would be null and void, if it could be proven that the effect of the law -- note "effect", not "intent" -- was to give a preferential advantage to one portion of the population over another portion. * SLMR 2.1a * Did you expect to find words of wisdom here? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Neuro Sonic 3 Jul 92 18:37:06 Subject: Liber AL UpdReq >Is it the message or the plagirism, that you don't trust? See my message to Gerald Del Campo dated 7/3 for an explanation of my position regarding trusting any spiritual source other than yourself. >Have you ever been ridden by the goddess of the stars? I'm not certain what you mean by "ridden" -- do you mean it in the Voudoun sense of the term? If you do, then no, I haven't. If you mean have I merged myself with her, then yes, on many occasions. And the goddess who is this world is one of my two constant companions, despite what any wiccans may say to the contrary. ;-> * SLMR 2.1a * Five tons of flax! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Mike Pfeiffer Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 1 Jul 92 19:21:52 Subject: Re: CARE BEARS UpdReq Your interpretation of the fact that Liber AL was filtered h Crowley's synapses as perhaps invalidatit as a source for moral authority is just tthat - an interpretation of the data as filtered through your nervous syst. Where is the objectivity in this process (objectivity, surely I jest) submit to you sir, that your LIb AL, like youe, your Cabala and what you think any given word means are unique to you, though we may ree on major points. I think the metaphysics of Thelema, which are passibly conveyed by the Book of t, are the source of "moral" authority, and I for one find the structural/functional aspects of the metaphysic works beautifully. Besides, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" - this includes your looking for moral authority outside of Liber AL, if it be thy will (though why one should chase such a phantom as moral authority is quite beyond me). 93! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Mike Pfeiffer Area: Thelema To: Frater Almost 1 Jul 92 19:27:44 Subject: Re: CARE BEARS Rec'd UpdReq A little condescending there, Care Frater. I respond: 1) You assert the manner in which GOD speaks with one. This seems to presuppose the existence of such a critter, its operating only in accordance with the pathway you lay out, and that you are competent to dispense such wisdom, by virtue of wahat remains unexplained. 2) I'm all for symbols, and I'm a hardcore elitist myself, but if you use language which talks down to people (even when they need it), oftimes thy words of wisdom go unheeded. 93! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Mike Pfeiffer Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 1 Jul 92 19:39:06 Subject: Re: THELEMA 101 UpdReq Guess again, pink boy! Who do you think own the redwhiteandblue, Bible thumpin', blackeyed pea eatin' American car companies? Who do you think makes all the spare parts for the piece of shit American car market. Besides, nationalism is among the outright silliest forms of pure evil. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Mike Pfeiffer 4 Jul 92 02:47:22 Subject: Re: CARE BEARS Sent UpdReq Hell, if somebody doesn't like what I'm saying, they sure as hell don't have to read it! I am so sick and tired of this "Crowley was full of non-sense and made up Liber AL to kill time, etc." horse-shit that I could blow chunks! <> ;) Seriously, though, I really am quite tired of it all. If Liber AL is such shit to Norton, then why the hell doesn't he just bugger out of Thelema and leave it to us "less enlightened" types. I can also quote various parts of AL Chap. III in order to support my snobbery towards him. Oh well, "And the slaves shall serve." Pax. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Chris Feldman Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 4 Jul 92 15:17:18 Subject: Da Bears Sent UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Josh: I've moved this thread here from the Tarot echo. First of all, I found the personal attacks on you rather disgusting and uncalled for. Whether I agree with you or not, your posts were interesting and thought-provoking, and since I don't believe in sacrilege, I don't have a personal problem with you expressing your viewpoint, whether "unthelemic" or not. Second, in re-reading your post to Michelle on Horus Stage, Set Stage and Nepthys Stage, it struck me that one could just as easily substitute Hadit for Set, and Nuit for Nepthys in this classification system. (One might even stretch it a bit to make it RHK, HPK, and HRH.) Leaving aside the question of Crowley's spirituality and humanity, which was his problem and not ours, I found your analysis of the path to Kether interesting, and find the difference between "your" system and that of "orthodox Thelema" more one of terminology than principle. If Thelema in general, and Crowleyanity in particular, don't fit your needs, fine. Personally, I find it necessary to separate the Babe from the bathwater myself. But to declare that you disagree with the Crowley/OTO mapping of Godforms onto the precession of the equinoxes does not invalidate -for me, anyway- those parts of Liber AL that I feel I have an understanding of. Love is the law, love under will. ____________________/\____________________ (_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_ /----\ _)_)_)_)_)_)_)_) (_(_(_(_(__ ( QUIF ) __)_)_)_)_) (_(_(_(__\----/__)_)_)_) ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ... =+=Vitriol=+= 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718