Deprecated: Methods with the same name as their class will not be constructors in a future version of PHP; multiLangField has a deprecated constructor in /home/institut/public_html/components/com_jshopping/lib/multilangfield.php on line 10

Deprecated: Methods with the same name as their class will not be constructors in a future version of PHP; parseString has a deprecated constructor in /home/institut/public_html/components/com_jshopping/lib/parse_string.php on line 2

Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /home/institut/public_html/libraries/rokcommon/RokCommon/Service/ContainerImpl.php on line 460

Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /home/institut/public_html/libraries/rokcommon/RokCommon/Service/ContainerImpl.php on line 461

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/institut/public_html/libraries/cms/application/cms.php on line 471
Institute for Jedi Realist Studies - Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1) - Page 3 - Institute for Jedi Realist Studies

Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

  • Posts: 171
  • Thank you received: 43

Hunter replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

you know, at first i thought that everybody knew exactly what they were talking about, and that everybody lived up to everything they said

then i began to understand them and i realized that nobody knows what they are talking about and nobody lives up to anything they say

then i began to understand them again and i realized that everybody knows exactly what they are talking about and everybody lives up to everything that they say

----

or how 'bout

pride, yet character

teach, yet learn

???

everyone has value
#46318

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 171
  • Thank you received: 43

Hunter replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

Hunter wrote:
i am a jedi
my commitment is to live up to the very best of my potential in every moment and circumstance of my life. The tools that i use to fulfill this commitment are discipline, training, service to others, and the willingnes to nurture, to respect, and when appropriate; to protect - the value and dignity of all things, begining with myself, and extending outward to include the entirety of the universe


the falcons eyes are sharp
even in sleep

the water does not burst forth
but collects itself until it has already won

even the trees and stones have wisdom
if one appreciates their worth

everyone has value
#46319

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Volund Starfire
  • Volund Starfire's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
  • Jedi Paladin
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 51

Volund Starfire replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

Hunter wrote: pride, yet character

teach, yet learn


These are both quite insightful. However, they both may not be entirely appropriate for the code, from a certain point of view.

Generally, even with the newer “there is no …, there is …” code, the first part is seen as something that must be put aside for the second of the second, to the benefit of the Jedi. However, pride and teaching may not entirely be appropriate for this.

Most people consider pride to be synonymous with hubris, a higher view of one’s status, skills, or accomplishments. However, pride is also one of those words which have a second meaning which is beneficial to a person. It denotes praise or a sense of enjoyment in the outcome of ones accomplishments.

Character, as I have been taught, is the culmination of ones accomplishments and experiences. To this end, character could be either positive or negative depending on the experiences and personal choices of the individual. So, the positive aspects of pride feed into the character of a person.

Anyone who has ever taught a class, especially in martial arts, knows that you learn as much from your students as they learn from you. This is true with regards to your style of teaching to how you perform your movements. Every good teacher must also be a good student.

However, a teacher is meant to teach and a student is meant to learn. If you give up your position as a teacher and become a learner alongside your student, are you truly still teaching them? As with the previous, it depends upon the situation and may not always be applicable with the Jedi. Yes, you may learn a new way of looking at a technique, but you must still teach that technique to your student.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
#46392
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake, Hunter

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Kol Drake
  • Kol Drake's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • koldrake55@yahoo.com
  • Posts: 4315
  • Thank you received: 1950

Kol Drake replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

Maybe this needs to be over at Warrior 101 but since we are talking 'codes' / 'creeds' --
.
.

The student must become a true warrior
in an age where there are no more warriors.
Kensho Furuya

.
.
The Warrior’s Code

Prof. Shannon E. French, Ph.D.
U.S. Naval Academy
Dept. of Leadership, Ethics, and Law
2001

“Warrior” should not be used to describe every individual who now fights, has ever fought, or prepares to fight a war. The term would have more strength if we reserved it to apply only to those war fighters who meet other important criteria, which may be less tangible, but ultimately more significant, than that of having taken up arms against an enemy. Before we call any collection of belligerents a culture of warriors, we should first ask why they fight, how they fight, what brings them honor, and what brings them shame. The answers to these questions will reveal whether or not they have a true warrior’s code.

On the first day of the philosophy course I teach at the U.S. Naval Academy called, “The Code of the Warrior,” I ask my students, who are midshipmen preparing for careers as officers in the U.S. Navy or Marine Corps, to reflect on the meaning of the word “warrior.” To facilitate this, I give them an exercise that requires them to identify whether any of a list of five words are perfect synonyms for “warrior.” They are then asked to write a brief explanation of why each of the five succeeds or fails as a synonym. The time constraint keeps their responses relatively raw, yet they are often surprisingly earnest or even impassioned.

The words I offer my students for their consideration are “murderer,” “killer,” “fighter,” “victor,” and “conqueror.” I have found them consistently to favor the rejection of all five. The reasons they offer to account for why they wish to dismiss each of these as synonyms for “warrior” regularly stress the idea that a true “warrior” has to be in some way superior to those who might qualify for the other suggested labels. Consider these representative comments from a variety of midshipmen:

MURDERER
“This word has connotations of unjust acts, namely killing for no reason. A warrior fights an enemy who fights to kill him.”

KILLER
“A warrior may be required to kill, but it should be for a purpose or cause greater than his own welfare, for an ideal.”

FIGHTER
“Simply fighting doesn’t make a warrior. There are rules a warrior follows.”

VICTOR
“Warriors will lose, too – and the people who win aren’t always what a warrior should be.”

CONQUEROR
“A conqueror may simply command enough power to overcome opposition. He can be very lacking in the ethical beliefs that should be part of a warrior’s life.”

Almost without exception, my students insist that a “warrior” is not a “murderer.” They can even become emotional in the course of repudiating this (intentionally provocative) potential synonym. It is very important to them to be sure that I understand that while most warriors do kill people, they never murder anyone. Their remarks are filled with contempt for mere murderers:

Ø “Murder is committed in cold-blood, without a reason. A warrior should only kill in battle, when it is unavoidable.”
Ø “Murder seems to me something that is done for an individual motive: a motive that has no real purpose or cause.”
Ø “Murderers have no noble reason for their crimes.”
Ø “While a murderer often kills innocent or defenseless people, a warrior restricts his killing to willing combatants. He may stray, but that is an error, not the norm.”
Ø “This word has connotations of unjust acts, namely killing for no reason. A warrior fights an enemy who fights to kill him.”
Ø “A murderer is someone who kills and enjoys it. That is not a warrior.”
Ø “This term has very negative connotations associated with it because a murderer is one who usually kills innocent, unarmed people – while a warrior has honor in battle and does not take advantage of the weak.”
Ø “A murderer murders out of hate. A warrior does not. He knows how to control his anger.”
Ø “Murdering involves taking an innocent life, which does not make someone a warrior.”
Ø “A warrior is not a murderer because a warrior has a code that he lives by which is influenced by morals which must be justified.”
Ø “Warriors fight other warriors. Therefore they kill, not murder.”
Ø “A murderer acts out of hate or personal selfishness.”
Ø “‘Murderer’ lacks any implication of honor or ethics, but rather calls to mind ruthlessness and disregard for human life.”
Ø “A murderer kills for gain, or out of anger. He does not allow victims a fair fight.”
Ø “The term ‘murder’ represents an act done with malice. Warriors killed people in an honorable way.”
Ø “‘Murder’ implies senseless and unjustified killing.”
Ø “A murderer has no honor.”

Clearly, my students do not regard the distinction between a warrior and a murderer as a trivial one. Nor should they. In fact, the distinction is an essential one.

Every human society on earth deems some behavior to be morally unacceptable, and murder is a good example of an act that is cross-culturally condemned. Whatever their other points of discord, the major religions of the world agree in the determination that murder (variously defined) is wrong. According to the somewhat cynical 17th-Century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, the fear of our own murderous appetites is what drove us (humans) to form societies in the first place. We eagerly entered into a social contract in which certain rules of civilized behavior could be enforced by a sovereign power in order to escape the miserable, anarchic State of Nature where existence is a “war of every man against every man,” and individual lives are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In other words, people want to live under some sort of system that at least attempts to make good the guarantee that when they go to sleep at night, they will not be murdered in their beds.

Unfortunately, the fact that we abhor murder produces a disturbing tension for those who are asked to fight wars for their tribes, clans, communities, cultures or nations. When they are trained for war, warriors are given a mandate by their society to take lives. But they must learn to take only certain lives in certain ways, at certain times, and for certain reasons. Otherwise, they become indistinguishable from murderers and will find themselves condemned by the very societies they were created to serve.

Whatever additional martial activities they may engage in, such as conquering foreign peoples, acquiring booty or expanding territory, warriors (even the so-called “barbarian” warriors) exist for one primary purpose. That purpose is to defend their communities from any forces that may seek to undermine the security of the social contract: from the “Barbarians at the Gate.” The trick is that they must find some way to accomplish this goal without become the barbarians themselves.

Most projections into the haze of our prehistoric past suggest that early human societies were tribal, and that within these tribes a hunter class, charged with providing food for the tribe and protection from predatory animals, evolved into a warrior class having a broader mandate to protect the interests of the tribe generally against all threats, animal or human. Alterations in population sizes, migration, and the strained carrying capacity of certain regions of the earth caused more tribes to come in contact with one another and vie for resources. Inevitably, serious inter-tribal conflicts arose. Before long, a successful warrior class became essential to each tribe’s survival. As more complex social-political systems developed and civilization advanced, the composition and exact duties of warrior classes around the globe underwent some changes. But their primary role remained constant: to protect and promote their culture’s survival.

The survival of a society does not depend just upon the rescue of citizens or the retention of land. The survival of a culture depends as much, if not more, on the continued existence, recognition, and celebration of a coherent cultural self-conception – on the preservation of cultural identity – as it does on the continued existence of a sustained population or physical boundaries. Several cultures persist in the absence of any physical boundaries (e.g. nomadic cultures), and a culture can be destroyed or supplanted by other means than genocide or territorial conquest. A culture’s identity is defined by its deepest values: the values that its citizens believe are worth defending, worth dying for. These are the values that shape a society’s “way of life.” And it is that “way of life” that warriors fight to maintain.

Warrior cultures throughout history and from diverse regions around the globe have all constructed codes of behavior, which establish that culture’s image of the ideal warrior. These codes have not always been written down or literally codified into a set of explicit rules, yet they can be identified as they are carefully conveyed in some form to each succeeding generation of warriors. These codes tend to be quite demanding. They are often closely linked to a culture’s religious beliefs and can be connected to elaborate (in some cases, death defying or excruciatingly painful) rituals and rites of passage. And in many cases they seem to hold the warrior to a higher ethical standard than that required for an ordinary citizen within the general population of the society that the warrior serves. The warriors themselves frequently police strict adherence to these standards; with violators being shamed, ostracized, or even killed by their peers. [One relevant historical example comes from the Roman legions, where a man who fell asleep while he was supposed to be on watch in time of war could expect to be stoned to death by the members of his own cohort.]

But why do warriors need such a code? Why should a warrior culture want to restrict the actions of its members and require them to commit to lofty ideals? Might not such restraints cripple their effectiveness as warriors? What’s wrong with, “All’s fair in love and war?” Isn’t winning all that matters? Why could any warrior be burdened with concerns about honor and shame? One reason for such warriors’ codes may be to protect the warrior him- (or her-) self from serious psychological damage. The things that warriors are asked to do to guarantee their culture’s survival are not always pleasant. There is truth in the inescapable slogan, “War is hell.” The combination of the warriors’ own natural disgust at what they must see in battle and the fact that what they must do on the battlefield seems so uncivilized, so against what they have been taught by their society, could make warriors feel tremendous self-loathing.

Warriors need a way to distinguish what they must do out of a sense of duty from what a serial killer does for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it. Their actions, like those of the serial killer, set them apart from the rest of society. Warriors, however, are not sociopaths. They respect the values of the society in which they were raised and which they are prepared to die to protect. Therefore it is important for them to conduct themselves in such a way that they will be honored and esteemed by their communities, not reviled and rejected by them. They want to be seen as proud defenders and representatives of what is best about their culture: as heroes, not “baby-killers.”

By setting high standards for themselves, warriors can create a lifeline that will allow them to pull themselves out of the hell of war and reintegrate themselves into their society. A warrior’s code may cover everything from the treatment of prisoners of war to oath keeping to table etiquette, but its primary purpose is to grant nobility to the warriors’ profession. This allows warriors to retain both their self-respect and the respect of those they guard.

The question can then be asked, if a warrior’s code is indeed crucial to the warrior’s moral psychology, is enough being done at today’s U.S. service academies to present our warriors-in-training with such a code and promote their internalization of it? Certainly, there are honor codes and honor concepts, character development seminars, ethics classes and core values. All of these efforts seem aimed in the right direction, but do they in fact add up to the successful transmission of a true warrior’s code?

I have asked many midshipmen and cadets this question in a variety of contexts. The answer they typically give is a mixed review. They do believe that they are given a code to follow; however, they are not necessarily certain either that it is an adequate warrior’s code or that they are sufficiently inspired to take it on board as their own personal credo (a way of life, not mere memorized words). I believe one of the reasons for this was captured by Mark Osiel in his book Obeying Orders, in which he argues that the modern military too often relies on a rule-following approach to character training, rather than employing a more Aristotelian method of promoting key virtues and providing strong role models so that young warriors can form deeply ingrained habits of excellence.

A second problem I believe can be traced to changes in the educational approach at the academies, that may be lumped under the broad umbrella of “political correctness.” For example, there is a push these days to avoid any lessons that might give our young warriors a sense of superiority over their civilian counterparts. This is driven by a well-intentioned concern over tension in civilian/military relations (the “widening gap”), but it can undermine the critical formation of confidence among our students. Midshipmen and cadets are exhorted not to regard themselves as an elite group, distinct from other cadres of the population. While I certainly agree that those who serve in the military should show (and, more importantly, feel) respect for those who achieve great things in the civilian world and make their own contributions to society out of uniform, I see no reason why such respect should be thought incompatible with feeling elite themselves. There is nothing odd about feeling immense pride in being, say, an excellent fire-fighter, and yet still having great respect for those who are, for example, excellent coaches, artists, or scholars. A warrior may take tremendous pride in the fact that he is among those few best qualified to defend his nation and still think very highly of those civilians who are best qualified to teach in urban high schools or run successful businesses or write an immortal sonnet.

On the moral side, I see nothing wrong with withholding respect from persons, in or out of uniform, who make no real attempt to adhere to ethical standards. If warriors do in fact live up to the high standards they set for themselves, it is not unfair or hypocritical of them to expect the same from others. On the other hand, warriors who are justifiably proud of the ethical components of their own code should not assume that all civilians lack any equally demanding code, simply because a civilian’s code, unlike the UCMJ, may not be backed by the threat of formal punishment. There are plenty of civilians who firmly believe that adultery is wrong and will remain faithful to their marriage vows, even if no laws required them to do so.

With regard to their martial abilities, warriors-in-training should be encouraged to feel that they are capable of things that most civilians (by choice or nature) are not. What is the point of training if, at the end of it, you do not feel that you can do or withstand what those not similarly trained cannot? Unfortunately, many rites of passage (events intended to prove to the participants that they can do or withstand what others cannot) have been softened to the point that they now carry little emotional significance. This was done to prevent a negative form of hazing, but it seems that the baby may have been thrown out with the bath water. Some hazing is nothing more the foolish exercise of petty power by one group over another. Hazing that claims the status of a rite of passage but in actuality does nothing to make the warrior feel more prepared to face the demands of his or her future career of service should indeed be avoided.

True rites of passage, in contrast, are carefully designed to allow those who endure them to prove something to themselves. Even if they involve lessons in humility, they are ultimately intended to make the warrior feel more like a warrior, not to make those administering or observing the rite feel better about themselves. Well-conceived rites of passage enhance individual dignity; they do not damage it. It should be noted that in historical warrior traditions, many of the most powerful rites are entirely self-administered. Sioux braves willingly pierced their pectoral muscles and attached themselves by cords to a tall pole, dancing around it until the cords ripped loose out of their torn flesh. The Chinese monks of Shaolin entered the Corridor of Death of their own free will, knowing that even if they survived its deadly gauntlet of booby-traps, they could not escape without lifting a 300-pound, red-hot cauldron away from the exit, using only their bare arms (which would be permanently branded in the process with the images of a dragon and a tiger). Such rituals may seem unnecessarily savage, but a similar criticism has been raised in modern times against mere blood pinning. I think it is both ridiculous and cruel to “protect” future warriors from rites of passage that may give them the confidence they will need to survive a genuine conflict, on the grounds that such rites may cause them physical or emotional distress, when we have no intention of protecting them from much greater physical and emotion distress in their careers or in combat. It is equally ludicrous to use the inclusion of women in warrior training as an excuse for watering down training. The desire to face real challenges, to demonstrate competence, and to build confidence by mastering trials is not gender-specific.

True rites of passage, along with other lessons and experiences conducive to making young men and women feel like warriors, have to be maintained at this country’s most prestigious service academies and other centers of military training. We must not send our defenders off to hunt through the caves of Afghanistan or subdue warlords in Somalia without first arming them with the internal strength and confidence that comes from struggling to live up to the demands of a warriors’ code. The specific skills and abilities that warriors need to succeed in responding to modern threats will continue to evolve, but as long as war involves killing and dying, there will be a need for warriors who feel like warriors. It is doing them a disservice to pretend that their jobs are no different than those of businesspeople, computer specialists, or engineers in the civilian world. They certainly need to know the difference between a warrior and a murderer. But they also need to know the difference between a warrior and a bureaucrat.
.
.

Do nothing to make you lose respect for yourself,
or to cheapen yourself in your own eyes;
let your own integrity be the standard of rectitude,
and let your own dictates be stricter
than the precepts of any law.
Baltasar Gracian

#46397
The following user(s) said Thank You: Hunter

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Kol Drake
  • Kol Drake's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Faculty
  • Faculty
  • koldrake55@yahoo.com
  • Posts: 4315
  • Thank you received: 1950

Kol Drake replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

...employing a more Aristotelian method of promoting key virtues and providing strong role models so that young warriors can form deeply ingrained habits of excellence. ...


To me, this is more of how we present at the IJRS. Not a rigid set of rules but lessons and guidance to help promote key virtues so the individual can strive for excellence.
#46438
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 171
  • Thank you received: 43

Hunter replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

Volund Starfire wrote:

Hunter wrote: pride, yet character

teach, yet learn


These are both quite insightful. However, they both may not be entirely appropriate for the code, from a certain point of view.

Generally, even with the newer “there is no …, there is …” code, the first part is seen as something that must be put aside for the second of the second, to the benefit of the Jedi. However, pride and teaching may not entirely be appropriate for this.

Most people consider pride to be synonymous with hubris, a higher view of one’s status, skills, or accomplishments. However, pride is also one of those words which have a second meaning which is beneficial to a person. It denotes praise or a sense of enjoyment in the outcome of ones accomplishments.

Character, as I have been taught, is the culmination of ones accomplishments and experiences. To this end, character could be either positive or negative depending on the experiences and personal choices of the individual. So, the positive aspects of pride feed into the character of a person.

Anyone who has ever taught a class, especially in martial arts, knows that you learn as much from your students as they learn from you. This is true with regards to your style of teaching to how you perform your movements. Every good teacher must also be a good student.

However, a teacher is meant to teach and a student is meant to learn. If you give up your position as a teacher and become a learner alongside your student, are you truly still teaching them? As with the previous, it depends upon the situation and may not always be applicable with the Jedi. Yes, you may learn a new way of looking at a technique, but you must still teach that technique to your student.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


thank you for the discussion; let me relate the way i was thinking of it when i wrote those

i tend to gravitate towrds the "original" code

emotion, yet peace ect right on up to death

for me its about embracing and accepting all of it

even chaos
to me this version of the code says "yes i am ignorant of a great many things and yet i sail this "sea of ignorance" on my craft of knowledge

i dont deny the ignorance and i dont fear it; i simply
y build thevessel of myknowledgeso that i can navigate efficiently

even chaos and death are things which absolutely exist no matter how we relate to them so for me theissue is to accept reality gracefully and adapt to it smoothly

i am a whisper of the Force
yes i will die but that just means that i return to wherevrr it was from which i came. i belive in the Force as a literal entity/energy/sentience/power and i feel confident that my life is a part of a pattern and a harmony that is much larger than just my single consciousness and so whatever happens at death is also a part of that pattern

ive seen enough tragedy in my life to be able to say that even with the tragedy of the world life is meaningful and there is a relationship that sentient beings have with the multiverse - the force - and so i can be at peace about death even as i strive to live

so for myself i like that inclusive way of looking at the code

the way i look at the relationship between pride and character;

so i agree that character itself is a neutral word - i see it as having implicitly understood rating or spectrum

some people are of low character and some of exceptional character

the same with pride

the balance between these two is that character dictates the humility to recognize my mistakes or to acceptmt my respinsibilities with grace and commitment

this in turn will help promote a lifestyle that i can consided worthy of being proud of

pride without character is imo the root of that hubris you mentioned

characer development imo requires one to take a healthy kind of pride in ones life, or at least it will result in it

saying it from another way, its good to have pride or to take pride in ones self and ones life

but when my pride reaches that stage where i feel that it is inappropriate for me to learn from others or to recognize the inherent dignity of others then my pride has become one of low character

even the lowliest white belt may have a gift for us from the force itself but if our pride keeps us locked into the mindset that we are supposed to teach what we know and theyre supposed to learn what we teach and thats our role division and the lines are clear and sharp and inviolable then long story short we're really denying the force itself

i think most of us can agree theres no telling who or what or how it will relay its teachings to us if we keep oursvelves open and of a cooperative and receptive character that is willing to put its pride in check and learn the lesson of the moment

in this situation the thing to do which would embody character would be to ackowledge the other persons value and to offer respects as a sort of olive branch and then keep the spirit of that offer in tact even if they dont respond right away


basically what i would say is that in virtually every single instance the really good teachers of any subje t are the ones who are still excited about learning themselves

as soon as you begin to lose the excitement of learning and the excitement of being a learner thats when the stagnation proccess sets in

theres no more stuffy and ridiculous kind of square than the expert who thinks hes got it all figured out because hes learned so much that hes beyond learning now and expects you to take him seriously when all you have to do is be alive and awake to knkw that as long as our minds still work there is more that any of us can learn

and in every subject or topic these are the teachers who students respond to the least

real knowledge and skill has the luxary of being easy and confident without having to enforce any kind of boundaries or lines
epertise and experience will speak for themselves

also, even when its not entirely conscious it is always the case that real excitement comes from the spirit of hlearning

at a certain point that also includes learning to teach

and students are inspired to learn most from someone who they sense is still in love with learning themselves

definitely this is not to say that teachers fail to teach the proper curriculum

its only to say that one should never lose sight of the lessons that life itself is presenting, even if those lessons come from unexpected places

sometimes the things a student has to teach dont have as much to do with the technique itself
just something in their attitude or their insight generally

but i would add that in a very rare cases you even find that a student may jn fact have a better grasp of a particular technique than one of the teachers

what does the teacher of high character do in this case?
obviously the standards of the curriculum have to be met, but if it is clear that one is dealing with someone who exceeds those standards then the only honorable thing to do is tk ackowledge the reality

sometimes a student comes to the dojo with a hefty amount of previous training even if its not from that particular denomination

to me is about each of us accepting our obligation to reach one hand ahead and one behind so that we can be pulled forward by the one in front and can also pull forward the one behind, without feeling as if we're too good for the hand of the given moment
because the moments will change

we'll all be on both sides of the line for each other at some time or another

and in general its my understanding that the only real shame that one can experience is to take ones hand away from someone who stands in the line with sincerity
:-)

everyone has value
#46528

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 171
  • Thank you received: 43

Hunter replied the topic: Purpose of the Jedi Codes (from Debate 1)

and also
thanks kol drake for posting that article i very much appreciated reading it

everyone has value
#46529
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kol Drake

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.149 seconds