Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Just a little troll. :-)

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Just a little troll. :-)
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Just a little troll. :-)
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I think we already discussed...

In reply to: Just a little troll. :-)

Superman is and has always been a Christ/Moses figure. Not that uncommon a literary device. I'd say more Moses since the original cresators were Jewish. Seems the movie is going for the Christ imagery.

Easier to tell a familiar story than come up with an original plot.

BUT, since this is a Superman Returns, is it the Second Coming?

Collapse -
Well, whether they are word for word true or not

In reply to: Just a little troll. :-)

the Bible is full of stories that captured the imagination of Hollywood. It is also quite possible, in my view, that biblical accounts of the surreal, unreal, heroic an impossible feats made the spread of Christianity much easier than if the compilation was bland. This was possibly especially true when introduced to the pagan Celts who loved a good tale and had to be bored with their own...so the new material was a true God send. Grin

Checking the sky now....nary a cloud. Happy

Collapse -
Bland? Heroic? It claims to be

In reply to: Well, whether they are word for word true or not

historical record, mixed with prophecies and ''wisdom'' writing, often in poetic form but usually not.

Campbell, Frazer and others have seen parallels:

?Sir James George Frazer
A monumental study in comparative folklore, magic and religion, The Golden Bough shows parallels between the rites and beliefs, superstitions and taboos of early cultures and those of Christianity. It had a great impact on psychology and literature and remains an early classic anthropological resource.? (Bartleby.com) I think he saw Apollo as prototype for Jesus.

My experience with the bible is that it stands on its own. And fairy tales don't go far with discerning adults. Mt 24/Lu 21/Mr 13 seem to be accurate descriptions of our day for almost 100 years now. Prophecy says further that things will get worse. Many on SE, all educated and well-spoken, think otherwise. No contest against a country carpenter, right?

Collapse -
Ah, but you would have to imagine

In reply to: Bland? Heroic? It claims to be

the biblical accounts of such as Sampson, David and Goliath being handed to those whose only tradition was oral and tended to embellish and change things with each new telling. Of course my reply was to be taken somewhat humorously and with the use of some imagination. Surely you have seen children's books of stories based on those in the Bible using language and images that fit the child's ability to understand and envision. These are the primers that first capture their interest with the later intention of capturing their entirety....right? I think so. Happy

Collapse -
I got the humor BTW.

In reply to: Ah, but you would have to imagine

As to your reply, what I particularly noticed in the BBC story was the apparent number of those who thought of using similar comics to teach ''bible stories'' as they're often called. Jesus believed the ark, Sodom, and Jonah stories were real and literal, and used them to teach life-and-death issues for our day. (Ex. Mt 24:37~ and Lu 17:28.)

And you could research the uses of oral histories throughout history before dismissing them. And the history was written, from oral and other sources, beginning at least at the time of the book of Numbers. (And the history related in the bible itself shows only five links in the chain of relation from Adam to Moses.)

Serious summary: The history of your church is to claim sole ''ownership'' of the bible, then to dismiss its importance in relation to Church Teachings and Traditions. Your replies, especially this one, show that influence on your thinking. That's why we encourage Study. Of. The. Bible.

Related note: Recently I went back to be with my dad after my mom died. He's hard-core Episcopalian (non-sequitur there :-)), and I got to look at their official local and national newspapers. I read there the claim that they base their religion on a 'three-legged stool' - for stability, as any dairy farmer can tell you: 'Sacred scripture, Faith, and reason'. Similar to an RC claim. I looked around the place during and after the funeral, and saw NO bibles in the nave, just Book of Common Prayer (read, Missal) and two hymn books; one traditional and one for the new breed. Downstairs in the community room I found three bibles, tucked away on a shelf gathering dust. And the statements during the service and in the newspapers showed that one of the legs was much shorter than the other. Do you see how that could affect the stool illustration?

''Do you believe in Jesus?'' someone asks. ''Of course,'' you reply. BUT - do you believe what Jesus believes? If not, you could find yourself on the wrong side of the account at Mt 15:3.

Collapse -
I give up

In reply to: I got the humor BTW.

I seriously believe that, since I outed myself as an RC church member many moons ago, you read all I say with some sort of predisposition or prejudice that flaws automatically exist in my thinking. Your dislike for my church is quite obvious...and "dislike" puts it mildly. Perhaps this statement is also flawed but I cannot recall one instance where I critized your religious path or mentioned the varient teachings of your faith that others have mentioned here with the many other beliefs said to be rooted in Christian or from other biblical extractions. I believe I have been quite kind while you seem to be more interested in disecting my posts searching for some disease state that you feel exists within them. I will refute, at least this statement you made.

''The history of your church is to claim sole ''ownership'' of the bible, then to dismiss its importance in relation to Church Teachings and Traditions. Your replies, especially this one, show that influence on your thinking.''

I have no belief that the Bible has an owner and have never heard any official in my church make such a claim. The Bible is an offered gift to the people of the earth and we are taught that it is inspired by God but compiled by man and it's contents have been continuously been been under the care and scrutiny of many since it came to be....not the least of whom have been from my own church. But, one thing I have not shown that you very much have shown is a certain smugness about the comparative value and truth of my faith in the eyes of God's desire and expections of us mortals. You'd better hope that smugness is acceptable to Him. Sad

Collapse -
You 'outed yourself' when you were confirmed.

In reply to: I give up

(If you weren't confirmed, you've been operating here under false pretenses - I'll tell the Pope! :-))

I've said before that 1 Pet 3:15 thus applies to you; if you aren't ready for it then in all honesty you should notify your confirming parish.

I've heard several versions of my ''ownership'' statement over the years- and remember, I go to Catholics and ask them directly about their religion and the bible- and I stand behind it.

Here's from one of my favorite sources for all things Catholic, newadvent.org:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
''The Bible
A collection of writings which the Church of God [the RC church, they mean] has solemnly recognized as inspired ...
''The books thus approved [by Jesus] were handed down to the Christian Church as the written record of Divine revelation before the coming of Christ. The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the Apostles either by Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith, to which nothing has been added since the Apostolic Age. Some of the truths were committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and have been handed down to us in the books of the New Testament. Written originally to individual Churches or persons, to meet particular necessities, and accommodated as they all were to particular and existing circumstances, these books were gradually received by the universal Church as inspired, and with the sacred books of the Jews [vetted by Jesus, as above] constitute the Bible ...
''However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); [another ''leg'' I mentioned] ...
It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered ''as sacred and canonical''. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.''

Here's an example:
We learn that Buddhists are accustomed to repeating prayers ("chants") in the belief that the quantity alone will have some merit in heaven. Their monks go so far as to write prayers on slips of paper, out of which they make fans. The believe that, each time the fan turns in the breeze, another set of prayers goes Up. We could show them Jesus' words on the subject, at Mt 6:
"But when praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words."
But before you go converting the heathen with this, ask yourself to reconcile the Rosary with Jesus.

If I say that repetitive prayers are useless in God's view, and point out that the Rosaries of Buddhists and Catholics are repetitive in the sense that Jesus had in mind, am I "smug" or factual?

Looking back on the thread, I wasn't addressing your citing of Hollywood. But your comments about the Celts, and there are similar examples involving stained-glass windows, contradict what the bible says about itself:
"For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart."

You've noticed that I tend to take religious questions seriously, especially where they concern the bible. Others take these questions seriously also, to the point that they're on Most Wanted lists. They're also being considered in your daily paper. This situation will get worse before it gets better. ("Mt 24/Lu 21/Mr 13 seem to be accurate descriptions of our day for almost 100 years now" is what I said earlier.)
You should consider dropping religious affiliation completely, at least until religion stops being a target- and yours is the biggest target. Otherwise, please study the bible.

Collapse -
Please give it a rest!

In reply to: You 'outed yourself' when you were confirmed.

Your comments in relation to the Catholic Church, The Bible, etc. are quite familiar ones to me.

They have been said for generations by those who, for whatever reason, want to believe the worse. However, I am quite aware that no amount of reasonable discussion would provide enlightenment.

BTW, Catholics are "outed" as Christians when Baptized.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
'my comments'?

In reply to: Please give it a rest!

Quotes from the bible, to the point. That has been the stumbling block for many church members. Same ones have often taken the lead in killing the messengers, beginning with Jesus' own mainstream religion. Mt 23:37

Many of the churches baptize at infancy (also not supported by the bible). How does an infant 'sanctify the Lord God in his heart, and stand ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh him a reason of the hope that is in him with meekness and fear'? 1 pet 3:15

Perhaps I expect too much of today's church members.

Collapse -
Of course, you never adequately explain the passages in

In reply to: 'my comments'?

the Bible which contradict your theology. For you, it's a one way street. Your way or ignore the poster. Never mind rational discussion, scholarly points of view, historical facts, clear statements of the Bible, etc.

You don't stand with the Bible or in the prophetic tradition DR.

Collapse -
My final comments in this thread

In reply to: 'my comments'?

Clearly Christ mentioned He would build a church. He said nothing about a book being available soon. This begs the question. "Was the church ever built?" If "yes" where is it? What does it look like? Can you point to it? I am not looking for your answers or anyone elses to these questions just pointing out that I think they are valid ones to ask. I, and many others, believe that Jesus meant for the work that had begun to continue and for it's integrity to be diligently maintained. It was promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Again, another good bone of contention I won't get into here.
You and I, Doug, will just need to agree to disagree about some aspects of use of the Bible and who is best able to provide the best interpretation of it. I will have no arguement about that. What I will do, and how I will conduct myself here and other places as I desire is to avoid picking on anyone else or the beliefs they have. Nor will you ever hear from me such as "My church good...your church bad". This does nothing to win friends or influence enemies. I will, as is my job, defend my church as best I can and know how...but I will not show anger, frustration, or judge others. Most importantly, if my viewpoint is not accepted or at least respected, I will not seek to blame or find fault with the listener....as do some unsuccessful sales people blame their customers. Good day to you. Happy

Collapse -
Response

In reply to: 'my comments'?

An infant needs love and care. For believers, this includes raising the little one physically and spiritually. For those who follow infant Baptism, it is the outward sign that the child will be raised in a Christian home, and such a pledge is made.

For those who Baptize when the child is older, this does not mean they were not raised in a Christian home. It's just a different approach.

The important factor is Baptism itself, infant, child, or adult (as was Jesus) for those who believe.

The Bible does not call for infant Baptism. Neither does it speak against it, however. Jesus said, ''Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'' ''Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.?

He knows what is in the hearts of us all.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
There was a precursor to baptism.

In reply to: Response

As I'm sure you know, the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament was circumcision. This was performed on infant boys, and is one rationale behind infant baptism.

Collapse -
Please check your church history.

In reply to: Response

''it is the outward sign that the child will be raised in a Christian home, and such a pledge is made.''
That's the post-biblical church view, not God's.
Augustine taught that infants would be damned eternally if they died unbaptized. Tertullian, earlier, taught against infant baptism, mainly on the grounds I mentioned. Church archaeologists know that baptisteries with small fonts, for sprinkling, are a late development.

Baptism is an outward and public sign of one's dedication to Jehovah and to doing his will. (John 7:21-23) It gives one a clean conscience before Jehovah and the world, which may also be all too familiar with the badness in our former course of life. (''The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ'' 1 Pe 3:21) Does an infant have a conscience? Does it know what bad is? Can it do bad? (Doo-doo doesn't count- it's an infants's destiny. :-))

''Suffer the children'' teaches something else; those children were Jewish, in the crowds which often followed him. Please read the passage again, and its context.

Collapse -
Actually, John 7 refers to the infant ritual.

In reply to: Please check your church history.

John 7:21 Jesus said to them, ''I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? NIV

1 Peter talks about water baptism as symbolic of the real, spiritual baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ NIV

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks, KP!

In reply to: Actually, John 7 refers to the infant ritual.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Good proofreading! I meant Matthew 7:21-23. Sorry.

In reply to: Actually, John 7 refers to the infant ritual.

Collapse -
Tell you what.

In reply to: Please check your church history.

I'll go with having the mind of a child.

I wish you health, happiness, and Salvation in your life and those of your family and friends.

Keep studying the Bible, pray for understanding and strength from His love in your spiritual life.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
?The mind of a child? But you aren?t one now.

In reply to: Tell you what.

Heb 5:12-14, to all who would call themselves Christians: ?For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time, YOU again need someone to teach YOU from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God; and YOU have become such as need milk, not solid food. For everyone that partakes of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.?

Remember Eve? Here thinking was childlike, in a way: (Ge 3:6) ?Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon.? Yet, she was capable of adult disobedience: ?At this the woman said to the serpent: ?Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ?YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.? She believed, but did not obey. Her penalty was the same as her husband?s. Death, not salvation. (James knew the difference: ?You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the [disobedient angels] believe and shudder.? Jas 2:19)
What does that mean for us? That we lost the chance to be Adam?s perfect descendants, free from sickness and death, living in a paradise. Except, Jehovah is not one to be swayed from his purposes:
?Further, God blessed them and God said to them: ?Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.? (Ge 1:28)
?so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.? (Isa 55:11)
?With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ?Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.? (Re 21:3-4)
How does he intend to do this? By a worldwide government under his son, Christ Jesus. ?This he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and good sense [adult territory], in that he made known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.? (Eph 1:8-10)

All of us now are undergoing a citizenship test of sorts. Are we willing to obey the published laws of this kingdom? If we can do so now, while under distraction from Satan, Jehovah will have grounds for confidence in us for the future. ?On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.? (Re 12:12) That ?short time? ends with Armageddon. Afterward ?the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. For Jehovah is a lover of justice, And he will not leave his loyal ones. To time indefinite they will certainly be guarded; But as for the offspring of the wicked ones, they will indeed be cut off. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.? (Mt 37:11,28,29)

What part of paradise isn?t to like? There it is in the bible, yet your church doesn?t teach it.
You say ?The Bible does not call for infant Baptism.,? yet you accept the church teaching.
Have you read Jesus? words at Mt 15? ?And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. . .? (Mt 15:6)
There are strangers within easy reach of you who teach the word of God, and others, friends and family, who teach the traditions of men. You have a choice, the kind of choice that adults are often required to make. Children always choose the easy way.

Collapse -
BTW, 'those who want to believe the worst'???

In reply to: Please give it a rest!

Collapse -
Nicer world for whom, DR?

In reply to: BTW, 'those who want to believe the worst'???

Since as I understand your church's philosophy (based on hearing streetcorner proseletyzers), salvation is reserved for a tiny few. A perfect example of taking allegorical Biblical language (in terms of numbers) and overinterpreting it literally.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
??? Different subject.

In reply to: Nicer world for whom, DR?

The scriptures I cited- of many more like them- say nothing about the number of people. That is contained in John 3:
Jhn 3:36, RSV: ''He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.''

Some say that only ''belief'' (''faith'') is required, because of John 3:14-16, which correctly connect belief with eternal life (salvation). But note that Jesus contrasted belief with disobedience in v.36.

Question then is, 'How do we obey, so as to get saved?' Part of the answer is given in Mt 7:21-23:
''Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that [last] day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'''

Those who do not get saved are doing some things that seem right to other men, but not to Jesus. What's the flaw in their thinking? ''... he who does the will of my father'' will be accepted by Jesus, not rejected.

''Since as I understand your church's philosophy (based on hearing streetcorner proseletyzers), salvation is reserved for a tiny few'' ???
Which church? Which corner? We go primarily from door-to-door, as most know, encouraging people to study the bible, not philosophy. (Col 2:8 ''See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.'')

Is your ''tiny few'' the 144,000, perhaps? That never was our belief, nor that of Jesus nor of his father. Some still say that about us, out of ignorance or spite. Ignorance can be corrected by investigation- here, by reading these scriptures and others.

Jehovah's purpose is to see the earth populated with righteous people. (Gen 1:28,29; Ps 37:29; Isa 55:10,11) His purposes never change; that will still happen, population not specified.

''Nicer world for whom, DR?'' For you, if you choose to do Jehovah's will. How likely are you to learn that will from a church that teaches 'Jehovah isn't even found in the bible' or 'Jesus is Jehovah' or simply, 'Praise the Lord'?

Collapse -
Misquoting scripture.

In reply to: ??? Different subject.

DR, your translation is wrong. John 3:36 says:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.'' NIV

Strong's says the Greek word is:

NT:544 apeitheo (ap-i-theh'-o); from NT:545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright

Collapse -
Obedience

In reply to: Misquoting scripture.

By the word of Kiddpeat: ?Obedience is NOT required to achieve salvation.?

By the word of Jehovah:
(1Sa 15:22-23) . . .?Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as [using] uncanny power and teraphim. Since you have rejected the word of Jehovah, he accordingly rejects you from being king.?

And, if you had read just a little further into Strong:
apitheo
1. not to allow one's self to be persuaded
a. to refuse or withhold belief
b. to refuse belief and obedience
2. not to comply with

This is from the same source as yours, 2002. My old paper edition goes further at (2):
?not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.?
In any case, it?s Jehovah?s opinion that counts, and well-translated scriptures show him using ?reject, disobey, refuse, withhold, disbelieve? as equivalently bad; bad for King Saul, bad for us.

In Romans 11, Moses, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and others are examples of faith, yet how would they have fared if they had not shown the obedience cited for them?
?Faith without works is dead,? is the line that Luther choked on. His system was based on ?grace and faith,? works not required. James was right, Luther was wrong. ?Not everyone saying to me, ?Lord, Lord,? will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.? (Mt 7:21)

From the beginning to the end, and on into the future, obedience is central to proper worship of Jehovah:
(Ge 3:2-3) ?At this the woman said to the serpent: ?Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ?YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.?
(Ps 40:7-8) ?In view of that, I said: ?Here I have come, In the roll of the book it being written about me. To do your will, O my God, I have delighted, And your law is within my inward parts.? (At Heb 10, Paul teaches that this was not just David?s prayer, but that of Jesus at his baptism.)
(Mt 28:19-20) ?Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU.?
(Re 20:3) ?And he hurled [Satan] into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.?

Collapse -
Re: Obedience and Strong's

In reply to: Misquoting scripture.

"If you went just a bit farther"

I did before I posted. The meaning is to disbelieve. Strong's also indicated that the King James sometimes renders the word as disobedience. Unlike the Watchtower, other translators do not look to the King James for support.

The Watchtower is deliberately mistranslating this verse DR. It is not KP speaking. It is the BIBLE speaking. Read it in something other than the Watchtower translation.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.