https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1dsoods/uk_telegraph_this_is_the_real_conspiracy_of/
Here are three articles on the same subject, from the UK Telegraph, on
three successive days. All three point out the same thing: that, in this >frenzied election season - we are, what, 3 days away from the election
date? 4 days? Can't remember, I care so much little - no-one is
mentioning COVID, lockdowns, vaccines, vaccine mandates.
This is the real conspiracy of silence in the election (28th June,
Francis Hoar)
The Conservatives are paying the terrible price for Britain's lockdown >amnesia (29th June, Daniel Hannan)
This is the one glaring omission from this election's endless debates
(30th June, Liam Halligan)
Francis Hoar KC is a barrister with a long involvement in anti-lockdown >activism. I vividly remember seeing him at the corner of Whitehall and >Parliament Square during an anti-lockdown protest, in full barrister's
dress, talking animatedly with a group of people who'd gathered around
him. (I joined in the discussion, of course!)
Daniel Hannan (now Lord Hannan, I think?) is a familiar figure in
Brexiter politics. I can't remember the details of his involvement with
Nigel Farage: was he a financier of the Brexit movement, or of the
Brexit Party?
Liam Halligan I know little about: but it seems he interviewed Jay >Bhattacharya in 2021.
All three are well worth reading. Choice quotes:
Hoar:
...the ability to exercise democratic choice matters little if the
public is unable to give its verdict on the sitting government’s most >far-reaching decision. We can only hope that time and experience will
teach us the lessons that will not be learned in this election about
this catastrophic error.
Hannan:
The paradox of the current election is that both Johnson and Sunak were
more sceptical of the lockdown than most of those who now blame them for
it. Recall that Keir Starmer opposed the loosening of restrictions, and
even wanted them reimposed at the end of 2021.
Halligan:
The impact of lockdown and the question of how the UK should respond to
the next pandemic remain at the heart of the nation’s collective
psyche.The fact this highly controversial policy has barely been
mentioned during the subsequent general election campaign, despite
compelling evidence countless mistakes were made, is yet another reason >public faith in politics is so seriously diminished.
The depressing thing is that while it's good to read publicly-expressed >opinions which agree with my own - that this election is almost entirely >meaningless - none of the three authors presents any possible solution. >Except, of course, that "we" (meaning the public sphere) should start
talking about it. Which is extremely unlikely to happen, either in the 3
(4?) days remaining before the polling booths open, or during the idle, >2-month-long, Parliament-on-holiday orgy of Labour triumphalism which is >likely to follow.
Hannan does, rightly, give credit to Nigel Farage for being the only >candidate to mention lockdown: which Farage has, in scathing tones.
Hannan doesn't go this far, or even hint at it (in spite of some bad
blood between the two of them which I seem to remember), but Farage's >speeches on lockdown seem to me to be a bit opportunistic. Though Hannan
does make me think better of Farage by pointing out that, though he was
in favour of the first lockdown, he was passionately against the second
and the third (I'd forgotten that).
My own view is that I'm glad that Farage is stirring up "trouble" by
trying to bring lockdown onto the agenda. I'm grateful to him for it,
though I've never been a political supporter of his (in fact, he was my >political opponent during Remain/Brexit). The flaw in this tactic of his
- for my desired purposes, not his - is that this is very likely to make
the 'proper' parties which we should vote for even less likely to take
the issue seriously: simply because it's Farage who raises it. We have
our own Farage Derangement Syndrome over here, like TDS over in the US.
(On the other hand, for Farage's own purposes, slamming lockdown will
win him plenty of supporters down here in the general public).
Which makes me wonder: is forcing the 'proper' political authorities and >parties to face up to the hideousness of what they did in 2020-24 a
realistic or feasible goal? Or should we write that off as impossible?
Is the best we can hope for that political authority, based on ignoring
this elephant in the room, will just continue to wither away, become
more and more farcical and divorced from reality? Until something
happens... it's a bit of a millennial, apocalyptic situation.
I've read (and probably written) plenty of opinion that the "mainstream" >parties, after their complicity in lockdown, are finished, discredited.
Yet right here, in the UK, is depressing evidence that they are far from >finished: if they're dead, they certainly haven't stopped twitching yet. >There Is Still No Alternative, as Thatcher didn't quite say. The
election is basically about the same old two parties.
Except for Nigel Farage's Reform, who are unlikely to win many seats
(partly due to our weird, minority-party-hating electoral system).
Personally I don't agree with Reform on many issues, though I obviously
agree completely with them on lockdown. So I'm in the weird position of
not voting for them (which doesn't matter where I live, they'd never
win), but still hoping that they win a significant number of seats, just
to give them a voice to go on poking holes in the 'proper' parties'
bubble of delusion.
In other words, I'm hoping for political instability: even though that
means more waiting, apocalyptically, for something, eventually, to
happen. Even though the prospect of political instability is pretty >horrrible. But I prefer it to the alternative: political 'stability', in >which everyone knows exactly what's happening, because everyone agrees >completely. I've lived through that, and I never want to again.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1dsoods/uk_telegraph_this_is_the_real_conspiracy_of/
Here are three articles on the same subject, from the UK Telegraph, on >>>three successive days. All three point out the same thing: that, in this >>>frenzied election season - we are, what, 3 days away from the election >>>date? 4 days? Can't remember, I care so much little - no-one is >>>mentioning COVID, lockdowns, vaccines, vaccine mandates.
This is the real conspiracy of silence in the election (28th June, >>>Francis Hoar)
The Conservatives are paying the terrible price for Britain's lockdown >>>amnesia (29th June, Daniel Hannan)
This is the one glaring omission from this election's endless debates >>>(30th June, Liam Halligan)
Francis Hoar KC is a barrister with a long involvement in anti-lockdown >>>activism. I vividly remember seeing him at the corner of Whitehall and >>>Parliament Square during an anti-lockdown protest, in full barrister's >>>dress, talking animatedly with a group of people who'd gathered around >>>him. (I joined in the discussion, of course!)
Daniel Hannan (now Lord Hannan, I think?) is a familiar figure in >>>Brexiter politics. I can't remember the details of his involvement with >>>Nigel Farage: was he a financier of the Brexit movement, or of the
Brexit Party?
Liam Halligan I know little about: but it seems he interviewed Jay >>>Bhattacharya in 2021.
All three are well worth reading. Choice quotes:
Hoar:
...the ability to exercise democratic choice matters little if the
public is unable to give its verdict on the sitting government’s most >>>far-reaching decision. We can only hope that time and experience will >>>teach us the lessons that will not be learned in this election about
this catastrophic error.
Hannan:
The paradox of the current election is that both Johnson and Sunak were >>>more sceptical of the lockdown than most of those who now blame them for >>>it. Recall that Keir Starmer opposed the loosening of restrictions, and >>>even wanted them reimposed at the end of 2021.
Halligan:
The impact of lockdown and the question of how the UK should respond to >>>the next pandemic remain at the heart of the nation’s collective >>>psyche.The fact this highly controversial policy has barely been >>>mentioned during the subsequent general election campaign, despite >>>compelling evidence countless mistakes were made, is yet another reason >>>public faith in politics is so seriously diminished.
The depressing thing is that while it's good to read publicly-expressed >>>opinions which agree with my own - that this election is almost entirely >>>meaningless - none of the three authors presents any possible solution. >>>Except, of course, that "we" (meaning the public sphere) should start >>>talking about it. Which is extremely unlikely to happen, either in the 3 >>>(4?) days remaining before the polling booths open, or during the idle, >>>2-month-long, Parliament-on-holiday orgy of Labour triumphalism which is >>>likely to follow.
Hannan does, rightly, give credit to Nigel Farage for being the only >>>candidate to mention lockdown: which Farage has, in scathing tones. >>>Hannan doesn't go this far, or even hint at it (in spite of some bad >>>blood between the two of them which I seem to remember), but Farage's >>>speeches on lockdown seem to me to be a bit opportunistic. Though Hannan >>>does make me think better of Farage by pointing out that, though he was >>>in favour of the first lockdown, he was passionately against the second >>>and the third (I'd forgotten that).
My own view is that I'm glad that Farage is stirring up "trouble" by >>>trying to bring lockdown onto the agenda. I'm grateful to him for it, >>>though I've never been a political supporter of his (in fact, he was my >>>political opponent during Remain/Brexit). The flaw in this tactic of his >>>- for my desired purposes, not his - is that this is very likely to make >>>the 'proper' parties which we should vote for even less likely to take >>>the issue seriously: simply because it's Farage who raises it. We have >>>our own Farage Derangement Syndrome over here, like TDS over in the US. >>>(On the other hand, for Farage's own purposes, slamming lockdown will
win him plenty of supporters down here in the general public).
Which makes me wonder: is forcing the 'proper' political authorities and >>>parties to face up to the hideousness of what they did in 2020-24 a >>>realistic or feasible goal? Or should we write that off as impossible?
Is the best we can hope for that political authority, based on ignoring >>>this elephant in the room, will just continue to wither away, become
more and more farcical and divorced from reality? Until something >>>happens... it's a bit of a millennial, apocalyptic situation.
I've read (and probably written) plenty of opinion that the "mainstream" >>>parties, after their complicity in lockdown, are finished, discredited. >>>Yet right here, in the UK, is depressing evidence that they are far from >>>finished: if they're dead, they certainly haven't stopped twitching yet. >>>There Is Still No Alternative, as Thatcher didn't quite say. The
election is basically about the same old two parties.
Except for Nigel Farage's Reform, who are unlikely to win many seats >>>(partly due to our weird, minority-party-hating electoral system). >>>Personally I don't agree with Reform on many issues, though I obviously >>>agree completely with them on lockdown. So I'm in the weird position of >>>not voting for them (which doesn't matter where I live, they'd never >>>win), but still hoping that they win a significant number of seats, just >>>to give them a voice to go on poking holes in the 'proper' parties' >>>bubble of delusion.
In other words, I'm hoping for political instability: even though that >>>means more waiting, apocalyptically, for something, eventually, to >>>happen. Even though the prospect of political instability is pretty >>>horrrible. But I prefer it to the alternative: political 'stability', in >>>which everyone knows exactly what's happening, because everyone agrees >>>completely. I've lived through that, and I never want to again.
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's >>secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all** >>appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given >>moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly >>contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and >>self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no >>longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( >>https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ >>) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1dsoods/uk_telegraph_this_is_the_real_conspiracy_of/
Here are three articles on the same subject, from the UK Telegraph, on >>>>>three successive days. All three point out the same thing: that, in this >>>>>frenzied election season - we are, what, 3 days away from the election >>>>>date? 4 days? Can't remember, I care so much little - no-one is >>>>>mentioning COVID, lockdowns, vaccines, vaccine mandates.
This is the real conspiracy of silence in the election (28th June, >>>>>Francis Hoar)
The Conservatives are paying the terrible price for Britain's lockdown >>>>>amnesia (29th June, Daniel Hannan)
This is the one glaring omission from this election's endless debates >>>>>(30th June, Liam Halligan)
Francis Hoar KC is a barrister with a long involvement in anti-lockdown >>>>>activism. I vividly remember seeing him at the corner of Whitehall and >>>>>Parliament Square during an anti-lockdown protest, in full barrister's >>>>>dress, talking animatedly with a group of people who'd gathered around >>>>>him. (I joined in the discussion, of course!)
Daniel Hannan (now Lord Hannan, I think?) is a familiar figure in >>>>>Brexiter politics. I can't remember the details of his involvement with >>>>>Nigel Farage: was he a financier of the Brexit movement, or of the >>>>>Brexit Party?
Liam Halligan I know little about: but it seems he interviewed Jay >>>>>Bhattacharya in 2021.
All three are well worth reading. Choice quotes:
Hoar:
...the ability to exercise democratic choice matters little if the >>>>>public is unable to give its verdict on the sitting government’s most >>>>>far-reaching decision. We can only hope that time and experience will >>>>>teach us the lessons that will not be learned in this election about >>>>>this catastrophic error.
Hannan:
The paradox of the current election is that both Johnson and Sunak were >>>>>more sceptical of the lockdown than most of those who now blame them for >>>>>it. Recall that Keir Starmer opposed the loosening of restrictions, and >>>>>even wanted them reimposed at the end of 2021.
Halligan:
The impact of lockdown and the question of how the UK should respond to >>>>>the next pandemic remain at the heart of the nation’s collective >>>>>psyche.The fact this highly controversial policy has barely been >>>>>mentioned during the subsequent general election campaign, despite >>>>>compelling evidence countless mistakes were made, is yet another reason >>>>>public faith in politics is so seriously diminished.
The depressing thing is that while it's good to read publicly-expressed >>>>>opinions which agree with my own - that this election is almost entirely >>>>>meaningless - none of the three authors presents any possible solution. >>>>>Except, of course, that "we" (meaning the public sphere) should start >>>>>talking about it. Which is extremely unlikely to happen, either in the 3 >>>>>(4?) days remaining before the polling booths open, or during the idle, >>>>>2-month-long, Parliament-on-holiday orgy of Labour triumphalism which is >>>>>likely to follow.
Hannan does, rightly, give credit to Nigel Farage for being the only >>>>>candidate to mention lockdown: which Farage has, in scathing tones. >>>>>Hannan doesn't go this far, or even hint at it (in spite of some bad >>>>>blood between the two of them which I seem to remember), but Farage's >>>>>speeches on lockdown seem to me to be a bit opportunistic. Though Hannan >>>>>does make me think better of Farage by pointing out that, though he was >>>>>in favour of the first lockdown, he was passionately against the second >>>>>and the third (I'd forgotten that).
My own view is that I'm glad that Farage is stirring up "trouble" by >>>>>trying to bring lockdown onto the agenda. I'm grateful to him for it, >>>>>though I've never been a political supporter of his (in fact, he was my >>>>>political opponent during Remain/Brexit). The flaw in this tactic of his >>>>>- for my desired purposes, not his - is that this is very likely to make >>>>>the 'proper' parties which we should vote for even less likely to take >>>>>the issue seriously: simply because it's Farage who raises it. We have >>>>>our own Farage Derangement Syndrome over here, like TDS over in the US. >>>>>(On the other hand, for Farage's own purposes, slamming lockdown will >>>>>win him plenty of supporters down here in the general public).
Which makes me wonder: is forcing the 'proper' political authorities and >>>>>parties to face up to the hideousness of what they did in 2020-24 a >>>>>realistic or feasible goal? Or should we write that off as impossible? >>>>>Is the best we can hope for that political authority, based on ignoring >>>>>this elephant in the room, will just continue to wither away, become >>>>>more and more farcical and divorced from reality? Until something >>>>>happens... it's a bit of a millennial, apocalyptic situation.
I've read (and probably written) plenty of opinion that the "mainstream" >>>>>parties, after their complicity in lockdown, are finished, discredited. >>>>>Yet right here, in the UK, is depressing evidence that they are far from >>>>>finished: if they're dead, they certainly haven't stopped twitching yet. >>>>>There Is Still No Alternative, as Thatcher didn't quite say. The >>>>>election is basically about the same old two parties.
Except for Nigel Farage's Reform, who are unlikely to win many seats >>>>>(partly due to our weird, minority-party-hating electoral system). >>>>>Personally I don't agree with Reform on many issues, though I obviously >>>>>agree completely with them on lockdown. So I'm in the weird position of >>>>>not voting for them (which doesn't matter where I live, they'd never >>>>>win), but still hoping that they win a significant number of seats, just >>>>>to give them a voice to go on poking holes in the 'proper' parties' >>>>>bubble of delusion.
In other words, I'm hoping for political instability: even though that >>>>>means more waiting, apocalyptically, for something, eventually, to >>>>>happen. Even though the prospect of political instability is pretty >>>>>horrrible. But I prefer it to the alternative: political 'stability', in >>>>>which everyone knows exactly what's happening, because everyone agrees >>>>>completely. I've lived through that, and I never want to again.
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of >>>>GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's >>>>secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps >>>>us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne >>>>pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all** >>>>appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the >>>>COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by >>>>rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given >>>>moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly >>>>contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and >>>>self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic. >>>>Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case >>>>scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron, >>>>Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations >>>>combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron" >>>>that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no >>>>longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry ( >>>>https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ >>>>) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) >>Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to >>always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.
Laus DEO !
Source:
https://narkive.com/fM46obJE.6
Thank you for noting that I have no COVID.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."
Shame on andrew, look at his red face.
He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'
Psalms
81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: >open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Proverbs
13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of >the wicked is in need.
Joel
2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
people shall never be ashamed.
Psalms
107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.
Acts
14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by >giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
your hearts with food and gladness."
someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...
Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:
John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing >> status. He includes himself in that status.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, >> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is >> not in us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 161:12:23 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,498 |