Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,242 Year: 5,499/9,624 Month: 524/323 Week: 21/143 Day: 11/10 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 64 (24531)
11-27-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-26-2002 11:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
what first step? and none taken
The examination of your premises.
i already did # 1 long ago, and nobody objected... more below.. as for 2, it appears the objection is based on the definition of the term 'universe'... i can't do much about that outside of using your definition.. but why should i? i hope i'm not accused of appealing to the authority of the dictionary
quote:
Look. Everything I can find about the guy tells me that he tracks pretty much with thousands of minor and forgotten philosophers. And he reminds me especially of certain branches of modern philosophy characterized predominantly by the profound shallowness of their work. There. I've said it. Not impressed. Not even intrigued. I see nothing to justify the effort.
ok, no more about plantinga after this... even tho he has nothing to recommend himself for you, he is highly thought of in philosophical circles by theists and atheists alike, the latter even consoling one another after being mauled by him in debates with a term *they* made up... "you've just been plantingized"... but ok, no more
quote:
cogito ergo sum-- Descarte can be dismantled simply by asking where is the "I" that you presuppose is thinking?
know what sometimes amazes me? how often it seems that message board readers/posters truly believe some of the greatest minds of history have been "dismantled"... earlier i answered your objection here... the "i" is whomever is reading... in this case, you... if 'where' you are is important, it only becomes so after you establish whether or not you exist... it's nonsensical to ask 'where' a non-existent you is located...
you are thinking, ergo you exist... you are a thing, ergo some thing exists...
quote:
quote:
therefore, the universe exists by definition
As per your definition...
at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't my definition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-26-2002 11:43 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 11-27-2002 12:53 AM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 64 (24578)
11-27-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by joz
11-27-2002 9:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted.....
which means, how do you know what passes for knowledge *is* in fact knowledge? ... in any event, your last phrase is the whole point... for example, you believe you possess knowledge that there is no Creator of the cosmos.. is this an accurate statement? if it isn't for you, it is for someone reading... i believe i possess knowledge that there *is* a Creator... now we know that
P or Q
~P
Q
so one of our two knowledge claims is simply that, a claim... one of us is wrong... but let's accept for the sake of argument that neither of us can prove our claim to others, empirically... how, in that case, can our respective claims be anything other than beliefs? for the one of us who is correct, his belief would happen to be true, thus that one would in fact possess "knowledge"
as for 'warrant', it's not as difficult a concept as it appears to be... we get so wrapped up in semantical arguments here, and that really seems a shame... i'm willing to grant the concept that your mind is properly functioning, ie it isn't under the control of an alpha centaurian (but i grant this only for the sake of argument *grin*), you have no serious mental or physical defects that might lead to irrational thought... you should grant the same.. this ties in with the "innocent until proven guilty" view... it's simply an evidentialist vs. anti-evidentialist argument, and one leads to a more open discourse in which a person's knowledge claim is viewed with an open mind
see, for a long time in discussions like these, one side (usually, if we're honest, the atheist/agnostic side) would say "i won't believe until you prove God exists"... christians rarely counter with, "but why don't you have a burden of proof in this?"... the reason is because there's an antipathy between the views whereby one or the other is unwilling to really *listen*... all i'm saying is, fruitful discussion is all but impossible under those conditions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by joz, posted 11-27-2002 9:19 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-27-2002 11:12 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 64 (24638)
11-27-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
11-27-2002 11:12 AM


ok john... what are your definitions of:
knowledge
universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-27-2002 11:12 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by graedek, posted 11-27-2002 7:29 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:23 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 64 (24706)
11-27-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by John
11-27-2002 10:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
What is the source of information? What is the most basic thing we have to work with? Perceptions. You know, those irritating bumps, whirs and whistles that get in the way of there not being anything at all. I am not aware of any way to bootstrap oneself out of this perceptual world. So we cross our fingers and make one assumption: there are dependable patterns in the chaos. Once you have dependable patterns, you are in like Flynn. These patterns, and the analysis of these patterns, are what we call knowledge.
hmmm... so in your opinion knowledge is the analysis of dependable patterns which we observe or perceive... and even the dependability of these patterns we base on an assumption? no mention of the analysis being in fact true, i suppose since the pattern we're analysing is itself based on the assumption it's dependable?
quote:
The Universe:
The Universe can remain undefined. I really don't see the need for it.
Now dear forgiven, it is your thread and your turn.
well this is so funny... i did define both, you didn't like the definition of universe i posted yet won't offer your own... in that case, we'll use mine by default
{Fixed 2nd quote structure - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:23 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John, posted 11-28-2002 12:03 AM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 64 (24771)
11-28-2002 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by joz
11-28-2002 12:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....
More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....
Guess whats next....
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
So your definition a)begs the question, and b)fails to account for that transcendental possibility....

as for a) you seem to be saying that if the definition of universe is as i stated earlier, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated," then including "I" in it begs the question... but is that true? john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how... so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by joz, posted 11-28-2002 12:03 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:23 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 3:02 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 64 (24842)
11-28-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John
11-28-2002 11:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
1) I pointed out that your definition was non-standard in philosophy. No problem, but confusing until you clarified it.
2) I believe I pointed out that you need to define 'exists' which you have not done.
3) Your final clause is absurd. My not offering a definition has nothing to do with my objections to your definition. Your definition has the same problems it always had. And the same it would have if I defined universe as the sum of all twinkies, or anything else. The two are not related. Maybe you should read up on informal logic.
ummmm ok, i'll do a little more work on informal logic ... but what i actually said was that an objection based on an assertion of error (the error being my definition of universe) with no argumentation showing the error, or even a counter definition of the term, is by definition without foundation... it's merely an assertion
quote:
quote:
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how...
Yes he did.
no, actually he didn't... he never even attempted to give a reason, which led to my statement below
quote:
quote:
so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
Let me try this. You have as premise one that the universe -- as per your def.-- exists. Premise two is that you exist. Premise two isn't really a new premise. It is derived from premise one. It seems to me therefore that any argument you make is really based upon premise one. This makes the whole thing tautalogical.
actually all i did was start with two statements, here's the original with joz's original reply:
quote:

Originally posted by forgiven:
this got bogged down in semantics before, so i think i'll try again, only slower this time... no jumping to the end of the book!!
givens:
1) i exist
2) the universe exists
now that's as far as i'm going till i see how many are gonna argue about it... if there's disagreement on those, i think i'll just hibernate for the winter

quote:
joz:
Better get your pyjamas on then buddy boy....
While I`ll grant you 1) for now (but only as it applies to me)(The cogito etc) why do you assume that the universe exsists?
It could all be fantasy, the earth, the sun, flowers rain, John and I even LL`s rants.....
I happen to agree that the universe exsists but I don`t think you can just assume it a priori without evaluating the alternatives....
so he granted cognition... i then began on this definition of the universe journey.. but if it helps clarify it,
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) the universe is made up of (insert defintion)
4) "i" fall into the category of (insert definition)
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
quote:
quote:
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental
You've just assumed everything in one fell swoop. Not much of a philosophy.
whew... when an objector fails to state the nature of the objection in clear terms, or fails to define those terms, one is left with no alternative but to use some definition he hopes will be acceptable... so i guess i could have just asked like this
1) are transcendental entities part of "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated?"
2) if not, how can it be asserted they are not part of the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John, posted 11-28-2002 11:23 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John, posted 11-29-2002 10:09 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 64 (25024)
11-30-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John
11-29-2002 10:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
I reviewed this thread from the beginning and the definitions I thought you were using are in fact the definitions you started out using-- I and Universe as seperate things. You then added that Universe includes I.
i honestly wasn't aware that my words have been written in an unclear manner... john, my house is a thing, the universe is a thing, yet the universe includes my house... i am a thing, the universe is a thing, yet the universe includes 'i'... what is so hard about this to understand? you seem to be saying that the universe *doesn't* include 'things'... i didn't "add" anything, i thought it was self-evident...
quote:
quote:
2) I believe I pointed out that you need to define 'exists' which you have not done.
And still have not done.
sigh... this is mind-boggling... i honestly didn't know which words you don't have a working knowledge of, which words you don't understand or need definitions for... i wrongly assumed, i guess, that you knew that 'exist' means 'to have being, whether material or spiritual'... but a person who asks (demands!!) a definition and then rejects that definition as "too broad" or "too narrow" or "too blue" or "too red" and then refuses to state a counter definition as acceptable is being merely argumentative...
quote:
Which, actually, I can't find. If I ever posted a particular objection to your definition I cannot find it. (I did state that it is too broad to be useful.) What I did do was press you to define it and to defend the definition, as per my comments that you are skipping the first steps.
again i wasn't aware most people have a problem understanding everyday language... now i am...
quote:
Joz, of course, has posted objections. He was twice, I believe, told the go play in another sandbox, but he stuck around. Chara, brought in some good information as well and was accused of playing semantic games (like, you said, happened in another thread )
joz's objection was simply that he didn't grant the existence of the universe... he seemed to have no problem with understanding what i meant by 'universe' nor what i meant by 'exists'... what made his objection moot was the fact that he ignored an earlier post in which i said i was *not* going to offer a proof for the universe existing, and if one wanted such proof one should look elsewhere... and you misread what chara wrote and what i replied.. my remarks to her were tongue in cheek, and i believe if you ask her you'll find she understood them that way... sorry you didn't, but frankly the reply *was* to her
quote:
quote:
(the error being my definition of universe)
The error being you hardly had a definition of the universe when this thread started. Review. I think you'll see that the definition has changed.
ahhhh i see... i 'hardly had' one... then i posted one... and the one i posted differed from the one i 'hardly had'... no john, i simply wrongly assumed you already knew what 'universe' meant... as i wrongly assumed you knew what 'exists' meant... if there is any word in this paragraph that needs defining before i move on, please let me know
quote:
no, actually he didn't...
You missed this then?
quote:
Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....
More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....
no, actually i covered this... 'self' falls within the universe for 2 reasons.. first, i have not always existed... second, the definition of the universe (tho perhaps too broad or overcooked or whatever) shows that "i" am a part of it
quote:
How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?
dare i say it? dare i ask it? did i forget yet *another* definition, 'transcendental'? sigh, silly me.. there i go again, assuming
quote:
quote:
1) i exist
2) the universe exists

Let me try this. You have as premise two that the universe -- as per your def.-- exists. Premise one is that you exist. Premise one isn't really a new premise. It is derived from premise two. It seems to me therefore that any argument you make is really based upon premise two. This makes the whole thing tautalogical.
i'm not sure what you mean by "the whole thing" above... what is a thing?
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) the universe is made up of (insert defintion)
4) "i" fall into the category of (insert definition)
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
quote:
1) now you need to define 'thing' Is this the same as 'something that exists'?
well of *course* i do!!!... i should have known that the casual reader would have trouble with what a "thing" is... sigh... a noun is defined as "a person, place, or thing"... if i said "house" is a noun and you asked why and i said cause it's a thing and you said what's a thing and i ran screaming from the room would you understand why?
thing:
a : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
b : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
quote:
3) hmmm.... the universe is a conglomerate? Interesting. The universe is a thing that is filled with things or the things that fill the universe make up the universe.
definition posted.. too broad? well, to you... but it's the one i'm using... i politely offered you the opportunity to post your own, you refuse for reasons stated below, "it isn't my job to make your argument".. that of course is nonsensical, nobody asked you to, but in the absence of your own we'll use mine... of course *that* results in you repeating your objection... you don't like my definition but refuse to state one you do like then accuse me of only being able to sustain an argument via a definition you don't accept.. round and round we go
quote:
Insert definition????? How can you leave out a key feature like that?
SIGH.. i *didn't* leave it out, you rejected it!! so instead of inserting it, i wrote it that way so you can use your own.. sheesh
quote:
4) Repeating #1 perhaps?
whew!!... the definition has been posted for universe... "i" am one of the things (oops, hope everyone knows what that means) included in that definition, ergo i am part of what makes up the universe
quote:
5) Actually, I can think of a couple of different ways to Venn diagram the above. Why don't you clean it up and resubmit.
it needs no cleaning up... i wish you would venn it and show us all how the terms of the propositions fail to conform...
quote:
quote:
whew... when an objector fails to state the nature of the objection in clear terms, or fails to define those terms, one is left with no alternative but to use some definition he hopes will be acceptable... so i guess i could have just asked like this
Whew.... it isn't my job to write your arguments. The point of my comment being that you just ASSUMED EVERYTHING. What's left to do? Might as well just go home. Which is my problem with your current definition of universe. It is too broad to be useful.
there you go again... imagine you present an argument (something you've thus far shied away from doing) and i object on the grounds that one of the terms, one which you assume everyone understands, isn't defined.. so you say, ok here's the definition... i say, oops sorry i can't accept that one therefore your argument fails... you say, well then what would you prefer i use as a definition? and i say, hey it's not *my* job to define *your* terms therefore your argument fails because even tho you defined the term i don't like it.. that's a fair assesment of what you've stated several times
terms should be defined where there's misunderstanding... they *should* be agreed to... but when the person objecting refuses to even offer a possibility of agreement, what can be done?
added by edit, the end of previous post:
1) are transcendental entities part of "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated?"
2) if not, how can it be asserted they are not part of the universe?
that was in answer to joz and stands as unanswered
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John, posted 11-29-2002 10:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 64 (25059)
11-30-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
11-30-2002 10:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
1) "i" am a thing
2) the universe is a thing
3) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
This is the syllogistic fallacy known as an undistributed middle.
oh really?... then maybe this has been your problem from the start... a failure to understand the basics of the subject can cause your errors to become magnified...
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
Description: A syllogistic argument in which the middle term of a categorical syllogism is not distributed in at least one of the premises.
the middle term in the syllogism, "thing," is distributed in *both* premises...
by the way, you worded the conclusion wrongly... it should read 'therefore the universe includes "i" ' for the mood to be acceptable... a common error tho, hardly fatal... you just need to "clean it up" before resubmitting it
i think you may have been confused as to the validity of an argument based on a faulty understanding of the words 'subject', 'predicate', and 'middle'... this is hardly surprising, given our previous inability to communicate based on a misunderstanding of the meanings of words...
now that i've cleared that up for you, everything else should fall into place

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by John, posted 11-30-2002 2:22 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 64 (25082)
11-30-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
11-30-2002 10:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
"The 29 students in Mr Strang's classroom gravely considered the two sentences scrawled across the freshly washed blackboard:
All A's are C's.
All B's are C's.
"'The apparent conclusion--that all A's are B's--does have a certain allure, a kind of appealing logic ... it's also dead wrong.'"
No webpage found at provided URL: http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/undismid.html
This looks to me very much like your argument.
it isn't because my argument isn't "all i's are things; all universes are things; therefore all universes are i's"... that's what you *wanted* it to be, but mine was based on the definition of the terms, and wasn't syllogistic in form... the universe is a thing, by definition... i am a thing, by definition... the universe includes me, again by definition... you attempted to show a fallacy by compacting this:
1) "i" am a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity (ie., i am a thing)
2) the universe is a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity (ie., the universe is a thing)
3) the universe contains the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated (by definition)
4) "i" am one of the things or phenomena observed or postulated
5) therefore "i" am a part of the universe
into what you wrote... notice i inserted the definitions since you misunderstood my reason for leaving them blank originally... i left them blank in case you wanted to insert your own, but even *that* was cause for argument... the whole point was to show that i am but one of any number of "things" that make up the universe
i am a distinct entity... the universe includes the whole body of distinct entities (and phenomena, etc)...
what you seem to want me to do is prove the definitions, but i said much earlier that i'm not going to do that, nor am i even going to attempt to prove the universe exists...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:51 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (25090)
11-30-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by John
11-30-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
BS. Your response to me in your post #55 indicates that you damn sure did think of it as syllogistic.
my response was based on the fact that i'd i posted a 5 step argument and any mention of an undistributed middle came by virtue of your compacting that according to your own terms... you said at least twice "it's not my job to form your arguments" then did exactly that from my post... i never said, nor would anyone think i meant, that all "i's" are things, all universes are things, therefore all i's are universes... that doesn't follow from anything i wrote and *that's* what i thought you were saying...
quote:
you attempted to show a fallacy by compacting this:
quote:
Indeed I did. I gave reasons for each edit. And you had no problem with that until I pointed out that the resulting structure was fallacious. In fact, as above, you first argued that it was not fallacious. Now that you've been nipped on it you've decided to backpedal and play the "you misunderstood" card. Frankly its a bit disgusting. Your own post indicts you.
what's disgusting is your continued fear of an open and honest, moderated, debate... that and, of course, your crude language and demeanor... which might explain the above mentioned fear... there are standards of behavior and language, and maybe the limitations placed on you by being unable to use even abbreviated obscenities would limit your "style"
quote:
the whole point was to show that i am but one of any number of "things" that make up the universe
quote:
"Show" wouldn't mean "argue" would it?
no, i did show it, not long after this post started... you simply continued to ask "what does thing mean?" ... "what does exist mean?" ... "what does universe mean?" ... so i defined terms that should need no defining only to hear even more sophmoric objections.. "i don't like that one it's too broad too wet too dry too red too blue" ... when offered the opportunity to post your own you rejected that ... anything to continue an absurd argument...
quote:
what you seem to want me to do is prove the definitions, but i said much earlier that i'm not going to do that, nor am i even going to attempt to prove the universe exists...
quote:
What exactly are you going to do?
speak to people who don't have the semantic problems you do, those who will, when they disagree with a definition, offer an alternative so the discussion can proceed instead of degenerating into absurdities

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by John, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 11-30-2002 9:15 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 64 (25096)
11-30-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John
11-30-2002 9:15 PM


quote:
quote:
that doesn't follow from anything i wrote and *that's* what i thought you were saying.
BS.
insightful...
quote:
quote:
what's disgusting is your continued fear of an open and honest, moderated, debate.
Talk about non-sequiturs!!!! LOL..... It is also a red herring and, well, just a cheap shot.
my apologies, wasn't meant to be cheap... merely true

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John, posted 11-30-2002 9:15 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John, posted 11-30-2002 10:15 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 64 (25123)
12-01-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by joz
12-01-2002 3:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated,"
Seems to me this is a 2 edged sword, afterall I can postulate transcosmic magenta gerbils, they don`t exsist and they are by your definition part of the universe thus the universe (as defined by you) doesn`t either....
So it looks like we have to do away with the postulated part leaving "the whole body of things and phenomena observed" which means that unless we observe these transcendental buggers they are not included in the definition of universe....
Seen any lately?
no, not since the late 60s/early 70s... concerning magenta gerbils, your point is taken, the objection noteworthy
quote:
So now the big question is how do you know that you aren`t one of these supernatural transcendtal buggers?
ok, it's a fair question... and i need at least another cup of coffee before i can even think clearly on it... but for now i think it has something to do with me not being eternal, iow "i" haven't always existed...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 12-01-2002 3:02 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024