Syrian Extremists Cut Off A Man's Hand As Punishme by HandsomeDon 2014/03/02 07:59
A group of Syrian Islamist militants posted a series of photographs of a man having his hand cut off in a live-update on Twitter.
The live-feed of the amputation, which was carried out in the northern town of Maskanah, near Aleppo, was re-tweeted by several Jihadi social media channels.
The group responsible, militant organisation ISIS - Islamist State in Iraq and Syria - claimed the man, an alleged thief, had requested to be punished in this way.
A group of Syrian Islamist militants posted a series of photographs of a man having his hand cut off in a live-update on Twitter.
The live-feed of the amputation, which was carried out in the northern town of Maskanah, near Aleppo, was re-tweeted by several Jihadi social media channels.
The group responsible, militant organisation ISIS - Islamist State in Iraq and Syria - claimed the man, an alleged thief, had requested to be punished in this way.
HandsomeDon 2014/03/02 08:06
Several Jihadi accounts said the 'thief' had admitted his crimes 'and also asked that his hand be cut off to cleanse his sins'.
It was not immediately possible to verify the accounts, and the photographs and tweets have now been removed from Twitter.
source : Dailymail and Bhaskar
Several Jihadi accounts said the 'thief' had admitted his crimes 'and also asked that his hand be cut off to cleanse his sins'.
It was not immediately possible to verify the accounts, and the photographs and tweets have now been removed from Twitter.
source : Dailymail and Bhaskar
detrimentum 2014/03/02 12:39
Perhaps if they feed them they won't steal. So very uncivilized. Really.
Perhaps if they feed them they won't steal. So very uncivilized. Really.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/02 15:36
Because the one thing every zealot who has ever lived has in common is an unflappable belief in their own righteousness, they believe the amputation is justified, killing him for theft wouldn't fall into this concept of "justice" and so they didn't.
Quote: outlaw: If you're going this barbaric route, why not just kill the man. Instead of making him a burden on someone else.
Because the one thing every zealot who has ever lived has in common is an unflappable belief in their own righteousness, they believe the amputation is justified, killing him for theft wouldn't fall into this concept of "justice" and so they didn't.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/02 23:38
A very slippery road indeed ... Both the Bible and Qur'an have sections dedicated to fair treatment of slaves, yet you don't hear anyone from either religion campaigning for the reinstatement of slavery on religious grounds do you? Zealots only see what they want to see and will find justification for their actions whether it exists or not.
Quote: outlaw: I hate to go down that very slippery road of "islam actually says this, not that" road, but isn't this very clearly mentioned in the quran that thiefs have to get their hands cut off as punishment? Can't say i blame the zealots then. I mean we have our own brand of zealots too but none of them have a thief's hands off as far as I know. Surely the idea must have come from somewhere.
A very slippery road indeed ... Both the Bible and Qur'an have sections dedicated to fair treatment of slaves, yet you don't hear anyone from either religion campaigning for the reinstatement of slavery on religious grounds do you? Zealots only see what they want to see and will find justification for their actions whether it exists or not.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 05:58
Does it? Islam relies on interpretation, reinterpretation and community consensus more so than any other religion I can think of. I haven't seen any machete wielding mobs of muslims roaming the streets in search of thieves, have you? There are over a billion of them surely if it was the "right" thing to do most of them would be but you don't see that do you? Then would that not suggest community consensus is absent, how then can can you or the zealots claim to have the right of it then?
Quote: outlaw: Except in this case the justification exists. As for slavery, why don't we see people asking for reinstatement of slavery? If god allows that, then what's wrong with it?
Does it? Islam relies on interpretation, reinterpretation and community consensus more so than any other religion I can think of. I haven't seen any machete wielding mobs of muslims roaming the streets in search of thieves, have you? There are over a billion of them surely if it was the "right" thing to do most of them would be but you don't see that do you? Then would that not suggest community consensus is absent, how then can can you or the zealots claim to have the right of it then?
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 13:40
Consensus [kuhn-sen-suhs]
noun, plural consensuses.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process. It is an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It is a general agreement or a group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cÅnsÄ“nsus (agreement), which is from cÅnsentiÅ meaning literally feel together.
1 hand cutting Muslim or even 1 000 000 does not a majority make. Unless you can prove that at least 600 000 000 (just over half their global population) muslims actively support and / or participate in hand cuttings then you really have no choice but to accept that this is the action of a minority and therefore not the general will of Muslims world wide.
Quote: outlaw: If community consensus is absent, then all interpretations are "right". That's actually a far worse state of affairs than if a single interpretation existed. Because now you can't even point to a verse and say, "hey guys, I think you are wrong about this". Zealots can say "bitch, you keep your interpretation and let me have mine".
Consensus [kuhn-sen-suhs]
noun, plural consensuses.
Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process. It is an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It is a general agreement or a group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cÅnsÄ“nsus (agreement), which is from cÅnsentiÅ meaning literally feel together.
1 hand cutting Muslim or even 1 000 000 does not a majority make. Unless you can prove that at least 600 000 000 (just over half their global population) muslims actively support and / or participate in hand cuttings then you really have no choice but to accept that this is the action of a minority and therefore not the general will of Muslims world wide.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 14:06
I know it was, that was my intention
for all that though its no less true ... I eat meat, I'm not morally opposed to it, when my grandfather goes hunting or fishing and wants me to come with I go. Since I'm not morally opposed to eating meat it only makes sense for me not to be opposed to getting the meat myself. Supporting an action your not willing to carry out yourself doesn't give the impression of certainty, on the contrary it practically SCREAMS "uncertainty".
I cannot speak for the unspoken thoughts of the 1 billion+ Muslims on the planet (can you?) so I won't hypothesize what they may or may not think. Rather I think the numbers give a more accurate picture of how things really stand in an unbiased way (either for or against Muslims). The numbers don't support your argument.
Quote: outlaw: That thing about machete wielding mobs is silly. I approve of the death penalty for certain crimes. But I can't kill a man with my own hands. Similarly, if some outdated barbaric mode of punishment exists as a law somewhere, then surely most people within that community must approve of it. Most of them might be too squeamish to do it themselves. But they agree that someone should.
I know it was, that was my intention
for all that though its no less true ... I eat meat, I'm not morally opposed to it, when my grandfather goes hunting or fishing and wants me to come with I go. Since I'm not morally opposed to eating meat it only makes sense for me not to be opposed to getting the meat myself. Supporting an action your not willing to carry out yourself doesn't give the impression of certainty, on the contrary it practically SCREAMS "uncertainty".
I cannot speak for the unspoken thoughts of the 1 billion+ Muslims on the planet (can you?) so I won't hypothesize what they may or may not think. Rather I think the numbers give a more accurate picture of how things really stand in an unbiased way (either for or against Muslims). The numbers don't support your argument.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 16:03
No a broad enough survey hasn't been conducted on that but we have examples of laws in Muslim dominated countries governments both in the east and west, we can also factor in the general conduct of Muslims both in those countries and abroad. Those numbers do exist and they are overwhelming in support of my argument.
Quote: outlaw: The numbers don't debunk my argument either because such numbers don't exist. Nobody has gone around asking every muslim if the approve of amputation, stoning, flogging, etc. So why don't we talk about whether these are the prescribed punishments or not.
No a broad enough survey hasn't been conducted on that but we have examples of laws in Muslim dominated countries governments both in the east and west, we can also factor in the general conduct of Muslims both in those countries and abroad. Those numbers do exist and they are overwhelming in support of my argument.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 16:10
I can't speak for Muslims but I use my own judgement when it comes to morality. I test those convictions against opposing ones when the opportunity presents itself and if they are found wanting (which doesn't happen very often to be honest) then I adjust them accordingly. One universal and infallible code of morality seems far-fetched to me, we are human and anything we touch (even religiously based morality) carries the possibility of a flaw / flaws.
Quote: outlaw: I was always told that the best thing about a belief in god (what i am condescendingly reminded i'm missing out on) is an objective standard of morality. The 'god' standard, which is far supperior to the 'human' standard. Now i'm being told that people can't even agree on what that standard is. That the real meanings are lost in interpretations and the best thing we can hope for is a 'consensus'. So much for the manual then.
I can't speak for Muslims but I use my own judgement when it comes to morality. I test those convictions against opposing ones when the opportunity presents itself and if they are found wanting (which doesn't happen very often to be honest) then I adjust them accordingly. One universal and infallible code of morality seems far-fetched to me, we are human and anything we touch (even religiously based morality) carries the possibility of a flaw / flaws.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 16:19
We have free will, we exercise that free will but we do not exercise that free will within a vacuum. We need context and reference, for religious people that context is their religion. For people who aren't religious that is something else. Personally I don't care which path people take, as long as it leads to an answer that isn't completely reprehensible. Note I made no mention of a "right answer", one that isn't completely wrong is good enough in my book. Gestalt theory states: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Quote: outlaw: If there is so much goddamned uncertainty even after you have a so-called instruction manual from the creator himself, people might as well start using their own heads to tell right from wrong.
We have free will, we exercise that free will but we do not exercise that free will within a vacuum. We need context and reference, for religious people that context is their religion. For people who aren't religious that is something else. Personally I don't care which path people take, as long as it leads to an answer that isn't completely reprehensible. Note I made no mention of a "right answer", one that isn't completely wrong is good enough in my book. Gestalt theory states: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 16:55
I missed this one when I was answering. The way I see it, in other words this isn't fact but my own personal opinion. Religion is a man-made institution, its a system and rituals through which we express our faith in our respective god / gods or goddesses. Faith on the other hand is a God-given state of being. In my own world-view I draw a distinction between the two, placing faith above religion. That isn't to say there's no value to religion, for those who believe religion is a vital and irreplaceable aspect of their lives.
That said the Holy Qur'an expressly forbids both suicide and the wholesale slaughter of innocents, there are entire sections dedicated to what is and isn't permissible during war. There have been multiple fatwas (religious edicts) over the years against suicide bombings on these civilian targets as having "No basis in the Holy Qur'an" and declaring them "un-Islamic". From where I'm sitting this isn't "inspiring" but a concerted attempt at "discouraging" any would be zealots.
Quote: outlaw: For most people, their "beliefs" are just a matter of personal convenience. They pick and choose. So do the zealots, but if a religious text can be applauded for being the sole righteous path to god and all that silliness, it's only fair that it's also taken to task for inspiring the zealots to allah hu akbar themselves in crowded places. Esp when we are talking about a text that contains instructions on how to train your slaves ffs.
I missed this one when I was answering. The way I see it, in other words this isn't fact but my own personal opinion. Religion is a man-made institution, its a system and rituals through which we express our faith in our respective god / gods or goddesses. Faith on the other hand is a God-given state of being. In my own world-view I draw a distinction between the two, placing faith above religion. That isn't to say there's no value to religion, for those who believe religion is a vital and irreplaceable aspect of their lives.
That said the Holy Qur'an expressly forbids both suicide and the wholesale slaughter of innocents, there are entire sections dedicated to what is and isn't permissible during war. There have been multiple fatwas (religious edicts) over the years against suicide bombings on these civilian targets as having "No basis in the Holy Qur'an" and declaring them "un-Islamic". From where I'm sitting this isn't "inspiring" but a concerted attempt at "discouraging" any would be zealots.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 17:05
The narrower your focus the less you see around you Tanuki, you're so focused on that one point that you're not seeing the dozens more that counter it. Your death penalty analogy while not completely wrong in theory has no measurable variables, its neither here nor there, it simply states a possibility that cannot be proved. Our conduct is however measurable.
Quote: outlaw:
Can you be specific about those laws? Because not all Muslim dominated countries use a strictly sharia-based code. For example, decriminalization of homosexuality would certainly be a violation of islam. As for the "general conduct of muslims", I'll go back to my death penalty analogy. As long as we have executioners willing to kill people for us, we don't need to get our hands dirty. To expand on this analogy, some people even say "we don't like this, but it's necessary in the eyes of god", and some people get even more ridiculous and shrug off all responsibility by saying "those dirty fornicators punish themselves!".
Besides, the question of how many people follow the instructions says nothing about the instructions themselves. I'm sure plenty of muslims drink and still identify themselves as muslims for all intents and purposes. Nobody asks for reinstatement of slavery, even though the quran allows it (by your own admission). So there are clearly discrepancies in instructions and people's general conduct.
So I'll go back to my question of what the text actually contains, besides the slavery thing. Does it or does it not criminalize non-criminal behaviors like homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc and prescribe stoning, flogging, death etc as punishments for these?
Can you be specific about those laws? Because not all Muslim dominated countries use a strictly sharia-based code. For example, decriminalization of homosexuality would certainly be a violation of islam. As for the "general conduct of muslims", I'll go back to my death penalty analogy. As long as we have executioners willing to kill people for us, we don't need to get our hands dirty. To expand on this analogy, some people even say "we don't like this, but it's necessary in the eyes of god", and some people get even more ridiculous and shrug off all responsibility by saying "those dirty fornicators punish themselves!".
Besides, the question of how many people follow the instructions says nothing about the instructions themselves. I'm sure plenty of muslims drink and still identify themselves as muslims for all intents and purposes. Nobody asks for reinstatement of slavery, even though the quran allows it (by your own admission). So there are clearly discrepancies in instructions and people's general conduct.
So I'll go back to my question of what the text actually contains, besides the slavery thing. Does it or does it not criminalize non-criminal behaviors like homosexuality, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc and prescribe stoning, flogging, death etc as punishments for these?
The narrower your focus the less you see around you Tanuki, you're so focused on that one point that you're not seeing the dozens more that counter it. Your death penalty analogy while not completely wrong in theory has no measurable variables, its neither here nor there, it simply states a possibility that cannot be proved. Our conduct is however measurable.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 17:13
Common ground at last. Everyone is entitled to self-determination, provided it does not unduly affect others negatively.
PS: "There can be no compulsion in Islam" is at least one of those "right answers" you might like.
Quote: outlaw:
The reason I worry about those who claim to get their "right answers" from religion is because their answer isn't just "right", it also often contains a divine nod of approval for them to go ahead and force everyone to accept it as the only right answer, or else...
The reason I worry about those who claim to get their "right answers" from religion is because their answer isn't just "right", it also often contains a divine nod of approval for them to go ahead and force everyone to accept it as the only right answer, or else...
Common ground at last. Everyone is entitled to self-determination, provided it does not unduly affect others negatively.
PS: "There can be no compulsion in Islam" is at least one of those "right answers" you might like.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 17:22
Dishonest, eh? No, but I will admit to being ever so slightly evasive. I'm not trying to prove you wrong as such, I'm providing you with an alternate to your theory, whether you end up agreeing with me or not doesn't matter half as much making sure you don't make that decision in a vacuum. In short I'm giving you options.
Quote: outlaw:
I find it a little dishonest on your part that you seem to know what the Quran "expressly forbids" when it suits you (when you hear me say something that you KNOW the Quran forbids and it presents a quick opportunity to tell me I'm wrong) but when i point out homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, apostasy, you're like "it's a matter of interpretation, who knows what it really says" etc or you duck the question, even though you KNOW the Quran's position on these as well as you know the suicide position.
I find it a little dishonest on your part that you seem to know what the Quran "expressly forbids" when it suits you (when you hear me say something that you KNOW the Quran forbids and it presents a quick opportunity to tell me I'm wrong) but when i point out homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, apostasy, you're like "it's a matter of interpretation, who knows what it really says" etc or you duck the question, even though you KNOW the Quran's position on these as well as you know the suicide position.
Dishonest, eh? No, but I will admit to being ever so slightly evasive. I'm not trying to prove you wrong as such, I'm providing you with an alternate to your theory, whether you end up agreeing with me or not doesn't matter half as much making sure you don't make that decision in a vacuum. In short I'm giving you options.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 17:52
The point, missing it completely ... okay, lets reset and focus. Lets not make this about a bakers choice of perceived "evils" of Islam, instead lets stay on topic, The cutting off of that mans hand. state a fact, reference your source or withdraw it. You in?
Quote: outlaw: I don't know what you mean by making a decision in a vacuum. Alright, I'll consider the possibility for a second that those 4 things I mentioned can constitute criminal behavior in some alternate universe...ummmm okay I'm done thinking. No, they don't.
The point, missing it completely ... okay, lets reset and focus. Lets not make this about a bakers choice of perceived "evils" of Islam, instead lets stay on topic, The cutting off of that mans hand. state a fact, reference your source or withdraw it. You in?
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 18:19
And I'm the only one being evasive? No matter, here are the facts with precise Qur'anic source as reference.
"The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a recompense for what they earned, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful." [5:38-39] ... This is the verse you're s concerned about, no?
The Arabic word translated as "cut" in the above mentioned 5:38 is "iqtaa" and occurs 14 other times in the same verb form in The Quran, and with the exception of 59:5 and possibly 69:46 all other occurrences mean the non-physical or metaphorical action of "cutting off relationship" or "ending" [2:27, 3:127, 6:45, 7:72, 8:7, 9:121, 13:25, 15:66, 22:15, 27:32, 29:29, 56:33].
Also not that the Arabic word for "hands" (aydi) is often used in The Quran in a metaphorical manner [2:195, 2:237, 3:3, 3:73, 5:64, 6:93, 8:70, 9:29, 23:88, 28:47, 30:36, 38:45, 48:10, 48:24, 111:1], and often has a meaning of power/means. It should also be noted that this word is in the Arabic plural meaning 3 or more hands, whilst only two people are referenced: the male and the female thief. This plural usage causes problems for the common interpretation of hand cutting.
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in three alternative ways, (1) cutting off their hands, or (2) cutting or marking their hands, or (3) cutting their means to steal, or cutting their hands from committing the crime. It should be said however that the only working example given in The Qur'an of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft.
They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"
He said, "What shall be its recompense, if you are not truthful?"
They said, "Its recompense is that he who has it in his bag, then he is its recompense. Like that do we recompense the wrongdoers."
[12:73-75]
12:79 makes it clear that Joseph (described in 6:84 as one of the guided and a good doer) was acting in accordance with God's law. Thus, one possible meaning of 5:38 is to apply it in the manner provided by Joseph's example.
To conclude, when all the above information is taken into account, it is clear that to physically cut off the hand or hands of the thief is not the only possible understanding and taking into account the law of equivalence would perhaps only be reserved for significant theft which led to harming others, hence harming the perpetrator being that the crime and its punishment must be in proportion to each other.
Quote: outlaw: I didn't state any fact to begin with. I asked a question. Does Islam prescribe this punishment for theft?
And I'm the only one being evasive? No matter, here are the facts with precise Qur'anic source as reference.
"The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a recompense for what they earned, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful." [5:38-39] ... This is the verse you're s concerned about, no?
The Arabic word translated as "cut" in the above mentioned 5:38 is "iqtaa" and occurs 14 other times in the same verb form in The Quran, and with the exception of 59:5 and possibly 69:46 all other occurrences mean the non-physical or metaphorical action of "cutting off relationship" or "ending" [2:27, 3:127, 6:45, 7:72, 8:7, 9:121, 13:25, 15:66, 22:15, 27:32, 29:29, 56:33].
Also not that the Arabic word for "hands" (aydi) is often used in The Quran in a metaphorical manner [2:195, 2:237, 3:3, 3:73, 5:64, 6:93, 8:70, 9:29, 23:88, 28:47, 30:36, 38:45, 48:10, 48:24, 111:1], and often has a meaning of power/means. It should also be noted that this word is in the Arabic plural meaning 3 or more hands, whilst only two people are referenced: the male and the female thief. This plural usage causes problems for the common interpretation of hand cutting.
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in three alternative ways, (1) cutting off their hands, or (2) cutting or marking their hands, or (3) cutting their means to steal, or cutting their hands from committing the crime. It should be said however that the only working example given in The Qur'an of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft.
They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"
He said, "What shall be its recompense, if you are not truthful?"
They said, "Its recompense is that he who has it in his bag, then he is its recompense. Like that do we recompense the wrongdoers."
[12:73-75]
12:79 makes it clear that Joseph (described in 6:84 as one of the guided and a good doer) was acting in accordance with God's law. Thus, one possible meaning of 5:38 is to apply it in the manner provided by Joseph's example.
To conclude, when all the above information is taken into account, it is clear that to physically cut off the hand or hands of the thief is not the only possible understanding and taking into account the law of equivalence would perhaps only be reserved for significant theft which led to harming others, hence harming the perpetrator being that the crime and its punishment must be in proportion to each other.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/09 18:30
You are free to think what you think and to draw your own conclusions Aman but you have the facts, read or ignore them at your discretion. Also you can fall back on the classic, "if interpretation is so important, yours may be completely wrong" argument it seems to be a favourite if all else fails conclusion ... Like I said I trying to give you options and context not make your decisions for you.
You are free to think what you think and to draw your own conclusions Aman but you have the facts, read or ignore them at your discretion. Also you can fall back on the classic, "if interpretation is so important, yours may be completely wrong" argument it seems to be a favourite if all else fails conclusion ... Like I said I trying to give you options and context not make your decisions for you.
Xiao Zen 2014/03/11 07:40
You have a funny way of using "if" and "may", as if they referred to mere minor possibilities instead of proven facts. 2 (for amputation) versus 12 (against amputation) isn't me possibly being right or both conclusions being equally valid. In an election that's an overwhelmingly unanimous landslide victory, unless of course you use the "every petty dictator of the past centuries vote count process" addition method in which case then 2 vs 12 in my favour means we're about equal at worst and at best means you win.
Those of you "not used to having metaphorical language in important texts regarding crime and punishment" probably don't know the first thing about Arabic and have never bothered to even glance at the Qur'an, if you had you'd know that there are always several possible layers of meaning in each section. That uncovering those meanings is its own specialized branch of theological study and has been from early in the history of Islam. You might also note that you're referring to a religions Holy text written centuries ago and not a modern "law for dummies" handbook, it has a certain level of poetry, and far from making it an anomaly amongst other Holy texts in format this trait is the norm so I fail to see why this would surprise you.
Quote: outlaw: How about yours may be right, if taken metaphorically. To those of us not used to having metaphorical language in important texts regarding crime and punishment, cutting off hands means cutting off hands. Since you just explained how a verse can have multiple meanings, i would now concede that both conclusions are valid.
You have a funny way of using "if" and "may", as if they referred to mere minor possibilities instead of proven facts. 2 (for amputation) versus 12 (against amputation) isn't me possibly being right or both conclusions being equally valid. In an election that's an overwhelmingly unanimous landslide victory, unless of course you use the "every petty dictator of the past centuries vote count process" addition method in which case then 2 vs 12 in my favour means we're about equal at worst and at best means you win.
Those of you "not used to having metaphorical language in important texts regarding crime and punishment" probably don't know the first thing about Arabic and have never bothered to even glance at the Qur'an, if you had you'd know that there are always several possible layers of meaning in each section. That uncovering those meanings is its own specialized branch of theological study and has been from early in the history of Islam. You might also note that you're referring to a religions Holy text written centuries ago and not a modern "law for dummies" handbook, it has a certain level of poetry, and far from making it an anomaly amongst other Holy texts in format this trait is the norm so I fail to see why this would surprise you.
Replies: 37
#77 Factual Zone
A forum for article style topics. Share your knowledge of nature, history, science & anything factual.