tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post3206391479627801128..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: How Much to Go After Philip Giddings?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-92120926162865282322013-01-19T21:05:25.224+01:002013-01-19T21:05:25.224+01:00As far as I am aware this wasn't a trial and I...As far as I am aware this wasn't a trial and I am fairly sure that all GS reps, regardless whether they are Chairs (please can we keep the term gender neutral - the chairs can be female too except in the House of Bishops) are entitled to express their personal views - as personal views. The other two Chairs did precisely that. One of the concerns, as I understand it, was that the Chair of Laity specifically stated that he was speaking in that capacity (as Chair) thus implying that his words should be given more weight due to his role, which some considered an unfair bias. (please note that I not saying I agree or disagree with that point, nor whether I think that was grounds enough to challenge his leadership - just that was the grounds for concern.) btw please can we take note that the Anglican Communion holds that both those who agree with and those who dissent from the ordination of women are both loyal Anglicans ( and one presumes therefore Christian) I was perturbed to read Phil Robert's comments implying I am not a Christian and in fact filled with evil, purely on the basis that I support it. It scarcely encourages on to hope that two integrities will foster mutual respect & the unity various groups insist they want.licensetoblesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846687233790716662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-62812714103669504842013-01-19T16:54:12.186+01:002013-01-19T16:54:12.186+01:00Had I been on General Synod, I would have been tem...Had I been on General Synod, I would have been tempted not to turn up so as not to be part of this sordid little episode. I'm sure many of those 100 felt that way. But, given the terrible weather, we will never know. The fact is that 132 voted in favour of the original legislation, and only 47 of those supported the criticism of Dr Giddings. <br />And just what is it about a Chairman's role that apparently requires him to keep silent when the other two Chairmen were prefectly free to express their views? Richard Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995833811532550388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-52057006922397182012013-01-19T01:56:08.974+01:002013-01-19T01:56:08.974+01:00I'm not sure we can presume to know the mind o...I'm not sure we can presume to know the mind of the 100 or so who didn't turn up - or how they may have voted or extrapolate any particular motives for absence, especially given the snow blizzards and warnings against travel. Much as I disagree with PG's views, no member of synod should be unable to express their views, so I am relieved at the outcome - but it perhaps it was important that some of the concerns & principles regarding a chair's role in debates should be aired and discussed. Something that Philip Gidding seems to think needs working through as well.licensetoblesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11846687233790716662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-5179069948260793492013-01-18T22:02:38.656+01:002013-01-18T22:02:38.656+01:00So Philip Giddings has been tried and found innoce...So Philip Giddings has been tried and found innocent, using a process which almost everyone has found very distasteful, apart from the 47 members of the House of Laity who voted for the motion. The 80 who voted against, and the 100 or so that didn't turn up, quite rightly constitute a huge majority against a sneaky piece of procedure. After all, the Chairman of the House of Bishops is entitled to an opinion, as is the Chairman of the House of Clergy.<br /><br />Perhaps Canon Barney ought to consider his position as a member of General Synod, and do the decent thing. Richard Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995833811532550388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-68039135022505023212013-01-13T18:25:54.441+01:002013-01-13T18:25:54.441+01:00Anonymous says "Somehow, a small group of lai...Anonymous says "Somehow, a small group of laity blocked that and in doing so brought the whole C of E to be a target for mockery." Part of the laity validy voted against the motion. (If they should have voted for it, why bother with the process in the first place.) But the CofE is a target for mockery because we have failed to explain why we have tow integrities and why we recognise both points of view. At least, some of us recognise both points of view. It would be good to explain the two views and that we accept both (though in all logic, they cannot both be right).<br /><br />And anonymous, it would be nice to know who you are.<br /><br />David Brock, Saffron WaldenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-58307079502609511772013-01-12T18:52:41.906+01:002013-01-12T18:52:41.906+01:00My constituency did no such thing. You have made ...My constituency did no such thing. You have made a series of incorrect assumptions there.<br /> <br />While the General Synod prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as it should) I think it is a great leap to say that all members of General Synod then listen to and respond to the promptings of the Spirit. Which group is most likely to obey the guidance of the Spirit - the Bishops, the Clergy, the majority of the laity, or a group of laity from the Diocese of Winchester?<br /><br />I still don't see how the ABofW is responsible for the possibility that Mr John may or may not be parachuted into the See of Durham. As far as I know, the Vacancy in See Committee hasn't even met yet.<br /><br />No, deliberately obtuse I am not. I do not share your opinion, but that is a different matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-63817509200588790342013-01-12T18:39:26.181+01:002013-01-12T18:39:26.181+01:00No, I was responding to your comment anonymous par...No, I was responding to your comment anonymous parson. I am not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.<br /> <br />Your reference to "Something went wrong in the General Synod discussion on women bishops" alludes to the work of the Holy Spirit because Synod prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in its deliberation. On that basis alone you should accept the decision but I understand why you do not. Had proper provision been made for dissenters as promised you would not find yourself in this position. <br />So far as the reference to the Archbishop of Wales is concerned, I was responding to the thread introduced about the possibility of Dean Jeffrey John being parachuted into Durham. In that sense the conflation you refer to was accidental but accurately reflects the Archbishop's position. <br /><br />If I had an agenda it would be justice for all, something that could be achieved in the 'Third Province' solution. Your constituency rejected that but that is what you should be working towards. Peace be with you.<br />AncientBritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357913998344777403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-20236947355867348052013-01-12T17:28:34.267+01:002013-01-12T17:28:34.267+01:00No, I made no reference to the Holy Spirit not del...No, I made no reference to the Holy Spirit not delivering the answer I wanted. I referred to some members of the house of laity - who by all accounts had an agenda of their own. Perhaps you're referring to a different Anonymous (there are several of us: we're a bit like Legion).<br /><br />I still don't see what the Archbishop of Wales' opinion on homosexuality has got to do with the question of the chair of the house of laity or the vote on women bishops. Perhaps you have an agenda of your own?<br /><br />Oh, I'm sure I mislead my congregation. Continue to dread. But I don't conflate women bishops with the ABofW's opinion on homosexuality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-70922807855101362552013-01-12T15:29:01.349+01:002013-01-12T15:29:01.349+01:00Anonymous, I thought I had missed something but I ...Anonymous, I thought I had missed something but I can find only my reference to the Archbishop of Wales so I take it that you are referring to my 7 Jan comment. <br />Your logic escapes me. Dr Morgan is on record as accepting gay bishops and has suggested that those of us who believe that marriage is a life-long union between one man and one woman are homophobic. Complaining about the protection afforded to the church he said: "I am not sure we want that kind of protection which makes us out to be very unwelcoming and homophobic."<br /><br />People in favour of the liberal agenda frequently use terms such as homophobic, bigot and misogyny against their opponents to appeal to secularists who do not support or infrequently attend church for rites of passage. <br /><br />Similarly you state that 'something went wrong' in the General Synod because the Holy <br />Spirit didn't deliver the answer you wanted to hear. If anything makes a mockery it is the failure of bad losers to abide by the rules.<br /><br />From your idea of slander, I dread to think how a 'mundane man-in-a-pulpit' might mislead his congregation.<br /> AncientBritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357913998344777403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-39707867072149807632013-01-12T13:32:04.553+01:002013-01-12T13:32:04.553+01:00Personally, as a mundane man-in-a-pulpit, I find a...Personally, as a mundane man-in-a-pulpit, I find all this politicking distasteful. Whether or not someone is fit for a role is a closed discussion for the affected group, not one to splash all over blogs and websites.<br /><br />Something went wrong in the General Synod discussion on women bishops: clearly the great majority of Anglicans would like to see women bishops (as would I, having worked with some amazing women priests). Somehow, a small group of laity blocked that and in doing so brought the whole C of E to be a target for mockery.<br /><br />How that translates into slandering the Archbishop of Wales beats me!<br /><br />Folks, can we please follow the good advice of St Paul?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-37731373893693896392013-01-09T16:20:35.020+01:002013-01-09T16:20:35.020+01:00If someone wants to table a motion of no confidenc...If someone wants to table a motion of no confidence and can demonstrate sufficient support ( I do not know what the rules are) it must be debated. However there is no point in discussing this before the next meeting as I am sure that Phillip Giddings will not do anything to offend in the interim. I suppose the idea is that the vote could be followed by an election. Well have a caretaker for 6 months if really necessary.<br /><br />David<br />West YorkshireDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05411510481652613673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-78564008170139353012013-01-09T15:04:45.537+01:002013-01-09T15:04:45.537+01:00Rowan seemingly verbally promised Jeffrey a senior...Rowan seemingly verbally promised Jeffrey a senior mitre before leaving office in compensation for previous events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54840100101092590682013-01-07T21:44:17.373+01:002013-01-07T21:44:17.373+01:00Worth reading
"It cannot be right that they ...Worth reading<br /><br />"It cannot be right that they are able to enter into legally recognised relationships which institutionalise and condone behaviour that is completely contrary to the clear and historic teaching of Scripture, as reaffirmed for Anglicans by the 1998 Lambeth Conference in its Resolution 1.10."<br /><br />He added: "The weight of this moral teaching cannot be supported by a flimsy proviso."<br /><br />The new Archbishop, Eliud Wabukala of Kenya<br /><br />Since we seem to be mentioning decline, the number of Christians in Africa has gone up from 6% to 60% in 100 years. In Korea from 2% to 50% in 100 years (China next?)<br /><br />And the UK (Anglicans) despite/because of increasing liberalism.........? (80% to 4% ?)<br /><br />The liberals have called for "no more fence sitting" from Welby. For one I tend to agree with them on this. <br /><br />George Kovoor: Principal - Trinity College Bristol, has said. <br /><br />You only really need one Christian book it is called the Bible. Get it out and read it.<br /><br />You know what Theology is? A blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. <br /><br />And "How do you spell faith?" R. I. S. K.<br /><br />I completely agree with George especially his remark that we need to wake up as Christians in the UK because as he says the "bloody foreigners are showing us how to do it". <br /><br />We have lost the faith to take risks. (Which means we have lost faith in God?)<br /><br />If the Anglican Church is to survive it will be because of Christians like Kovoor and Wabukala<br /><br />Not Williams, Shori, Robinson or Morgan. <br /><br />Some of us on this blog expect the church to grow under Women Bishops. (At least I think that is what they mean although they have not said it as such. Equality rather than Church growth seems the major motivator)<br /><br />I believe we need a Wabukala, who preaches the Gospel and who would enforce and discipline our clergy (A real act of love for our Church).<br /><br />Why then pick on Philip Giddings? <br /><br />Like all bullies they like an easy target. <br /><br />Phil<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Phil Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151392742310244391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-22816062718182134642013-01-07T11:27:14.848+01:002013-01-07T11:27:14.848+01:00Monmouth becomes vacant in June and the Abp of Wal...Monmouth becomes vacant in June and the Abp of Wales has looked forward to the opportunity of appointing a gay bishop for some time. He may not welcome someone who puts him in the shade but he currently favours importing senior staff which says a lot about his stewardship and the job satisfaction of clergy in Wales. Yes, sadly it is just a job for most these days with equality of opportunity in the workplace, for some. As one commentator on my blog wrote: "Experience and loyalty, both to diocese and province, seem to count for nothing as so many of the senior appointments go to imports. Just as well this didn't happen to our bishops during their rising in the ranks!"<br />http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/another-politician-in-clerical-clothing.html#comment-form AncientBritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357913998344777403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-58600447516440178782013-01-07T10:51:57.039+01:002013-01-07T10:51:57.039+01:00mmmmm....the CNC meets to discuss the Bishop of Bl...mmmmm....the CNC meets to discuss the Bishop of Blackburn in Jan, the Bishop of Manchester in April and the Bishop of Durham on 19/20th June....an appointment to any of these dioceses that did not have the approval of the six diocesan reps is surely unlikely...I cant therefore see a "parachuted arrival" of a controversial candidate( especially to Durham having had a bishop who stayed 10 months and one that was frequently absent, and in the recent past a somewhat controversial scholar)is foregone. Perry Butler Canterbury. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-4506254348947768572013-01-07T09:52:06.946+01:002013-01-07T09:52:06.946+01:00Anonymous,
If you could help me on this one (the ...Anonymous,<br /><br />If you could help me on this one (the preparation for Jeffrey John's parachuted arrival, that is), my email address is linked on the right, or alternatively just phone - I'm in the book!<br /><br />John RichardsonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34029046088005917352013-01-07T02:07:29.159+01:002013-01-07T02:07:29.159+01:00Anon, if that's where you are, you likely have...Anon, if that's where you are, you likely have more scope for investigation than John does! Also if what you say is the case, could it even be argued that the choice of Justin Welby was made so as to vacate his see for JJ? Or would that not have been the case had the vote been carried?<br /><br />Meanwhile I'd certainly think that this announcement is designed to place a fact on the ground (esp. if JJ's appointment follows shortly thereafter) so as to "jump" Synod all the more into voting "the right way" come July.<br /><br />What days we live in.<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-85976075323629245962013-01-06T20:31:20.281+01:002013-01-06T20:31:20.281+01:00This is all a smokescreen. Please can you investig...This is all a smokescreen. Please can you investigate as a matter of urgency the fact that the 'announcement' on gay bishops is preparation for Jeffrey John to be parachuted into Durham.<br />(sorry I cannot give my name, as I work at church house and might get into troubleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-87702058881768704142013-01-06T14:30:24.594+01:002013-01-06T14:30:24.594+01:00Good rules John. I'd add a couple which MJ ha...Good rules John. I'd add a couple which MJ hasn't always been known to play by, namely - no slippery tactics, no holding others to standards/demands you refuse you abide by yourself, and no ignoring responsive points made two or three times over!<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23698463033446294972013-01-05T23:16:30.885+01:002013-01-05T23:16:30.885+01:00Ahem ... I've been on holiday, though aware of...Ahem ... I've been on holiday, though aware of the volume of comments here.<br /><br />Can I just remind folks of Tim Keller's rules of engagement, ripped off from Michael Jensen on Facebook:<br /><br />Tim Keller's 'rules for engagement:<br /><br />1.Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not hold.<br /><br />2.Take your opponents’ views in their entirety, not selectively.<br /><br />3.Represent your opponents’ position in its strongest form, not in a weak ‘straw man’ form.<br /><br />4.Seek to persuade, not antagonize–but watch your motives!<br /><br />5. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing theology–because only God sees the heart.<br /><br />Play nicely. (That's my attempted rule here.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40053087407619587532013-01-05T22:36:29.017+01:002013-01-05T22:36:29.017+01:00Youthpasta
I thought you might have the decency t...Youthpasta<br /><br />I thought you might have the decency to reply to me direct. <br /><br />Never mind you decided to reply to my comments via Stephen.<br /><br />Why is this because my words upset you they are not worthy of a reply to me direct?<br /><br />If you were secure in your faith if you were "born again" or "transformed", nothing that I would say could bother you.<br /><br />The personally offensive comment is the nub of the problem. If some things are off limits. Then we will not mention what we perceive to be happening, as it may be a contentious issue for some and at all costs we avoid possible offense. Net result, we will not be honest and we will never move forward as a Church. <br /><br />Do you know why Paul calls us brothers and sisters in Christ? Because we are family. To members of a family we can be much more direct than with people we hardly know. You will have a deeper relationship with them. No matter what they will always be your family and you take a great deal of interest in their well being. (In the west at least the individualistic culture and tiny families have made this concept not immediately obvious as it would be in Paul's time, but we can still just about appreciate what Paul is saying). <br /><br />I do care for them/you as brothers and sisters. I want the best for you. That is why I wrote it. <br /><br />The overwhelming majority of Christians (Including the majority of Anglicans) read their bibles and have concluded that women have a fantastic ministry to perform but not in authority over men. <br /><br />That is what the Bible says. <br /><br />There are lots of other things that the Bible says which I find rather inconvenient. However, because Jesus was willing to die for us we should honour his word. <br /><br />Otherwise, you are writing your own bible and with your own bible you will be worshiping your own god. <br /><br />If you have made your own bible and god? <br /><br />You work it out. <br /><br />PhilPhil Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151392742310244391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-73682819054205282122013-01-05T17:49:46.229+01:002013-01-05T17:49:46.229+01:00In the light of the announcement by our Bishops th...In the light of the announcement by our Bishops that you can be in a civil partnership and be a bishop are these not dark and sad days for the Church of England? Before anyone reminds me I realise that they are being consistent. Once you have stated that presbyters can be in civil partnerships why not the senior presbyters/bishops? But where are the dissenting evangelical bishops? We are regularly told that we have more evangelicals becoming bishops but where is the public dissent and disagreement to this statement? To remind us of a regular line of thought from John have the diocesan bishops consulted their presbyters as to the wisdom and rightness of this decision? Are they so bound to collegiality that they cant say anything? I realise too that when an evangelical becomes a diocesan bishop they suddenly discover how difficult the problems are in their own diocese. Where do you start when doctrinal and moral orthodoxy have slipped so far even amongst the clergy? Better to settle for peace with pay! I ask again where are the dissenting evangelical bishops to this announcement? It is left once again to the presbyters in the local churches to shepherd the flock, to teach the truth and refute error. May God have mercy on the Church of England! Bob Marsden, Buxton. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-66525257118929378172013-01-05T17:24:36.292+01:002013-01-05T17:24:36.292+01:00Youthpasta
“my use of the term "strong"...Youthpasta<br /><br />“my use of the term "strong" was to place it in opposition to the term "weak", the term that Paul does use in the passage I mentioned.”<br /><br />The point remains that Paul did not think they were “strong”. In fact the opposite, as I suggested in my previous post. If they were to persist in their course of action Paul would not consider them to be genuine Christians.<br /><br />“I am dismayed at his comments for the 2 reasons that I have stated, that they are judgemental and personally offensive. Judgemental because he judges those who are in favour of women bishops to not be Christians.”<br /><br />Was Paul being judgemental in 1 Corinthians about those you call “strong” and who you equate to those in favour of women bishops? You seem surprised that there should be apostates even within the leadership of the church. But surely the New Testament encourages us to expect this to be the case so we can be alert? Which involves recognising people for what they really are. (See Matthew 13:21 when difficulties arise “on account of the word” one falls away, Matthew 24:9-11 many will fall away and false prophets will arise, 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “people will not endure sound teaching” but will get teachers who teach what they want to hear. Also 2 Peter 2 and Jude).<br /><br />In addition to the false teachers and prophets there will be those who, though genuine Christians, are not alert and who have forgotten the scriptures and refuse to believe that the women bishops issue is just part of the whole strategy to bring the church in line with the idols of the modern age.<br /><br />Where Canon Stephen Barney fits in I don’t know but in his pursuit of this measure against Philip Giddings he brings great shame on the name of Christ.<br /><br /><br />“Regarding women in leadership in general, I have posted about it on my own blog and posted links here, as well as stated that by following the links through my profile”<br /><br />Do you mean here?<br />http://youthpastablog.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/women-in-church-leadership/<br /><br />Hardly convincing.<br /><br />You make a case that women have been in leadership in the Bible. But Rahab (by the way the spies were not Joshua and Caleb – they had been spies previously), Naomi and Ruth as leaders? I don’t think so! Mary Magdalene was not the first evangelist in the sense of any church appointment or leadership position. Paul mentions that Phoebe is a servant of the church yet for you that automatically means she is in leadership. Andronicus and Junia (or Junias) are well known to the apostles (which better fits the context than “ among the apostles” unless by apostles we just mean those who are sent and therefore without any evidence of being in leadership).<br /><br />So despite what you say there is no evidence in the NT of women having authority over men in the church. But on these rather shaky foundations of examples of women in leadership you assert that for Paul not to be guilty of contradicting himself, what he wrote in 1 Timothy 2 has to be limited to 1st century Ephesus! Despite Paul basing his position on Adam and Eve! Also you’ve completely ignored the headship verses.<br /><br />Steven PascoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-69378513000112798222013-01-05T14:34:58.849+01:002013-01-05T14:34:58.849+01:00Steven, my use of the term "strong" was ...Steven, my use of the term "strong" was to place it in opposition to the term "weak", the term that Paul does use in the passage I mentioned. As such, it is not a definition by the word but a grouping of those who would be perceived as not "weak" from their own perspective by use of a word known as it's opposite. Hence the use of parentheses.<br /><br />Regarding women in leadership in general, I have posted about it on my own blog and posted links here, as well as stated that by following the links through my profile, so if you want to debate that issue then can I suggest doing so on my blog as it is not the specific issue of this blog post.<br /><br />As for my "horror" at Phil's comments, I am dismayed at his comments for the 2 reasons that I have stated, that they are judgemental and personally offensive. Judgemental because he judges those who are in favour of women bishops to not be Christians. Personally offensive because by doing so he suggests that my own faith is a sham.<br />Both these things are things that have been used by those on the "extreme" end of the in favour wing of this argument, which is one of the reasons why (if you read my blogs on the issue) I have huge problems with the arguments for the implementation of women bishops. They are sickening to hear from any Christian, but even more so from someone who's position I have argued to defend in spite of being in disagreement with it. A I said to Phil before, it is just as well that there are far more people of a more gracious nature, like John, on his side of the argument, because otherwise I would be highly disinclined to be supportive.Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-92077049090703907362013-01-05T11:13:16.819+01:002013-01-05T11:13:16.819+01:00Sorry I issed one bit out
We are to model ourselv...<br />Sorry I issed one bit out<br /><br />We are to model ourselves on Christ. So notice that he spoke one way to the Pharisees and another way to the woman caught in adultery. Both were "judged", but one more harshley than the other.<br /><br />PhilPhil Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151392742310244391noreply@blogger.com