Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1648 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 76 of 307 (431424)
10-31-2007 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Archer Opteryx
10-31-2007 12:46 AM


Please, seriously, stop it. What you are doing is extroadinarily frustrating, and leaves me with zero interest in discussing with you. Feel free to be an annoyance, but I simply won't respond to you.
You are fundamentally and willfully breaking the implicit agreement that people make, to attempt to understand each other and work together to establish communication. That is sophistry. That is annoying. That pisses me off.
I *WAS* happy to tell you my thoughts, but not because I wanted to argue or convince you, simply to inform you of my internal state. I told you, I hate philosophy. I have no interest in discussing the philosophy of my position in order to determine "right/wrong" or "correct/incorrect". I only had interest in letting you ask questions to facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.
Fortunately for me (in your eyes), I am no longer happy to discuss anything with you. You lose, go away.
Seriously, please don't reply to this message. Show me at least that amount of respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2007 12:46 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2007 3:16 AM Ben! has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 77 of 307 (431427)
10-31-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 6:56 PM


'Everything' as a Viewpoint
Crashfrog writes:
If everything can be philosophy, then there's no such thing as philosophy.
So does it follow:
If everything can be subject to the four fundamental forces of physics, then there's no such thing as fundamental forces in physics.
If everything can be made of chemical elements, then there's no such thing as chemical elements.
If every statement can be subject to logical analysis, then there's no such thing as logical analysis.
If every skyscraper can have a foundation, then there's no such thing as skyscraper foundations.
This 'sophistry' business is fun. I especially find the last two statements pertinent to the discussion.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 6:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 2:07 AM anglagard has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 307 (431429)
10-31-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by anglagard
10-31-2007 1:55 AM


Re: 'Everything' as a Viewpoint
If everything can be subject to the four fundamental forces of physics, then there's no such thing as fundamental forces in physics.
Not everything can be.
If everything can be made of chemical elements, then there's no such thing as chemical elements.
Not everything is.
If every statement can be subject to logical analysis, then there's no such thing as logical analysis.
Not every statement is.
If every skyscraper can have a foundation, then there's no such thing as skyscraper foundations.
Not everything is a skyscraper.
On the other hand, I've been repeatedly informed that "everything is philosophy", which really means that nothing is philosophy. See, the limits are important. The limits are part of establishing rigor.
But "everything is philosophy." Thus, there is no rigor in philosophy. There is no philosophy, it can answer no questions because it can't distinguish between truth and fiction - only between fallacy and tautology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2007 1:55 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2007 2:24 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 307 (431430)
10-31-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Archer Opteryx
10-31-2007 12:46 AM


It would not pull the thread off-topic. What it would do is contradict your statement that you disdain philosophy.
Well, I hope it's becoming abundantly obvious why some of us so disdain philosophers, particularly ones like AO who say much and mean little.
Isn't it at least somewhat instructive that the only way it seems philosophy can be defended is for its defenders to act like complete assholes?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2007 12:46 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 10-31-2007 9:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 80 of 307 (431431)
10-31-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 7:11 PM


Economics Too!
I doubt the Dean is going to close the Philosophy department just because I don't see any intellectual merit in the field. For one thing, they'd have to close down Theology and Economics, next.
WTF Crash? you find no intellectual merit in economics too? Like microeconomics, engineering economics, business forecasting, banking?
Do you have a problem with the intellectual merit of computing compound interest?
Far out.
Maybe you should take some classes before dismissing whole fields of human endeavor.
Dismissing philosophy and theology is bad enough, if nothing else it is necessary to have some minimal understanding of both to fully comprehend various events in history.
But economics too!
You and those YECs are the only people here who apparently argue for ignorance.
Edited by anglagard, : add one of those philosophic qualifiers.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 7:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 2:32 AM anglagard has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 81 of 307 (431434)
10-31-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
10-31-2007 2:07 AM


Re: 'Everything' as a Viewpoint
crashfrog writes:
But "everything is philosophy." Thus, there is no rigor in philosophy. There is no philosophy, it can answer no questions because it can't distinguish between truth and fiction - only between fallacy and tautology.
I guess that depends upon one's definition of every, and everything.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 2:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 307 (431437)
10-31-2007 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by anglagard
10-31-2007 2:12 AM


Where's the rigor
WTF Crash? you find no intellectual merit in economics too?
Yes. No rigor. In science, inaccurate models are rejected. In economics, they're enshrined.
Economists still argue about whether economies are driven by supply or by demand. A field that cannot settle even the most fundamental of its questions is a field with no rigor.
There's a very good reason that the so-called "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not actually awarded by the Nobel Prize committee, but by a Swedish bank in his name.
Do you have a problem with the intellectual merit of computing compound interest?
That's mathematics. It was not an economist who discovered e, Ang.
Dismissing philosophy and theology is bad enough, if nothing else it is necessary to understand to fully comprehend various events in history.
Um, no. You're thinking of anthropology, which is the study of human beings. The study of religion as a human phenomenon is anthropology, or possibly sociology. Theology is the study of God, and like economics and philosophy, is a field with no rigor.
You and those YECs are the only people here who apparently argue for ignorance.
What, are we to accept as valid any field that appends an "ology" to its name? What are your feelings, then, about dragonology? Wizardology? Unicorn science?
Are we to have no standards at all, or must we place every made-up "science" on an equal footing with physics and chemistry?
Not being able to distinguish between fact and fantasy doesn't add to knowledge, Ang. Knowledge only comes when truth can be distinguished from fiction. Fields such as philosophy and theology - and, yes, economics - have absolutely no ability to do that. Thus, they're of no value for contributing to human knowledge. They may be fun, or they may be useful for generating deep-sounding bullshit to impress undergrads, but, lacking rigor, they contribute nothing to human knowledge.
Fantasy is fun, don't get me wrong. A great deal of my life is wrapped up in fantasy and fiction. But I can also distinguish between the fiction and the reality. How did you come to lose that ability, Ang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2007 2:12 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2007 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2007 9:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 104 by anglagard, posted 10-31-2007 9:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 83 of 307 (431443)
10-31-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Ben!
10-31-2007 1:13 AM


Feel free to be an annoyance, but I simply won't respond to you.
You already have, Ben. With an angry outburst.
And an odd one. Why so much anger at discovering you are actually happy to discuss philosophy?
Relax. Believe it or not, there are worse discoveries one can make.
You are fundamentally and willfully breaking the implicit agreement that people make, to attempt to understand each other and work together to establish communication.
On the contrary: achieving understanding and communication is exactly what I was working toward. And I have some solid achievements to show for it.
We both discovered, for example, that we share a common interest. We like to discuss philosophical questions, such as the nature of truth and the role of hard data in finding it.
We also both learned that this discovery infuriates you rather than delights you.
We have communication. We have progress toward understanding.
Not bad for one exchange.
That is sophistry.
Some people wave white flags, some say 'uncle,' some throw a towel, and some say 'sophistry.' Regardless: thanks for the medal.
My purpose, though, was not to make you feel beaten. It was to show you something. Just something I thought you would find interesting.
That is annoying. That pisses me off. I *WAS* happy to tell you my thoughts, but not because I wanted to argue or convince you, simply to inform you of my internal state.
And I am happy to listen on that basis. As I say, I enjoy philosophical discussions.
Maybe even as much as you do.
Sharing thoughts about the acquisition of knowledge with others who are interested in how it works... that's the essence of a philosophical discussion, really.
I told you, I hate philosophy.
You did say that. But what infuriates you is learning that you like it.
You thought you understood what philosophy was and you imagined yourself as standing somehow beyond it. You are learning that you didn't, and you don't.
You have made some emotional investments in the idea of Ben as a philosophy hater. To have that picture altered is clearly stressful for you.
My advice is to pull those investments. They're far out of proportion to what the picture is worth. No thinking person is a philosophy hater. They dislike some ideas, but they never hate all philosophy across the board. They do too much of it.
I have no interest in discussing the philosophy of my position in order to determine "right/wrong" or "correct/incorrect". I only had interest in letting you ask questions to facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.
But that's what a good philosophical discussion does.
Few philosophical questions are ever settled finally as 'right/wrong,' 'correct/incorrect.' The questions tend to endure. People who discuss these questions know this. They just explore, seek as much clarity as they can, and compare notes. They arrive at personal syntheses that suit them and share ideas. They let others ask questions and test their reasoning in order to allow others to--how did you put it?--'facilitate making your own decisions about yourself.'
You have here provided us with an excellent description of philosophy in action.
I am glad you enjoy discussions of that sort. I do, too.
Seriously, please don't reply to this message. Show me at least that amount of respect.
I respect you enough to believe you are not made of sugar candy, despite your efforts to get us to think so. Imposing a gag rule after claiming martyr status is not the stuff of which communication--which you say you value--is made.
Anyway, you opened your post by saying 'feel free to be an annoyance.' It seems I already have your express permission to participate in this discussion regardless of your feelings about anything I say.
If you don't want replies, don't post. If you want the last word, earn it.
________________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : tinkering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Ben!, posted 10-31-2007 1:13 AM Ben! has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 234 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 84 of 307 (431444)
10-31-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 6:56 PM


If everything can be philosophy, then there's no such thing as philosophy.
Let's stick with a general definition then...
quote:
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 6:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 234 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 307 (431446)
10-31-2007 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 7:11 PM


empiricism is real: though I have no evidence for that
I can answer it by gaining some evidence, and seeing if my knowledge
is accordingly extended.
How would you be able to determine if your knowledge is extended?
Why is that question meaningful or relevant to the gaining of
knowledge?
We need to agree on what knowledge is before we can be said to have gained
it, right?
Particularly if epistemology gives us no tools to actually answer
it?
An agreed system of reasoning is a pretty good tool for justifying how and why evidence can
lead to knowledge, what we mean by knowledge etc
But the scientists have access to tools that, eventually, will
settle their dispute. Science provides a framework to settle questions
and disputes.
A framework to settle questions and disputes is a pretty good definition of philosophy
What disputes has philosophy ever settled? None, as far as we can
tell.
What disputes hasn't philosophy ever settled? It settled the
geocentrism one, for example, by arguing on the nature of the evidence,
what that means and how we can apply reason to reach conclusions about
the real world. Parsimony helped in that debate if I recall correctly. The two models worked identically, but one was vastly simpler - it did away with the superfluous entity of regression by explaining it.
Should women be allowed to abort fetuses? Should we go to war? What do
we need to do to show that x is true? All philosophy I'm afraid.
Philosophy does not provide a means of discerning true positions
from false ones, because it has no rigor.
Perhaps you can define 'rigor' for me, and how I would know it when I
see it? Can you justify why it is a necessary or desired quality in a discipline?
The best it can seem to do is to tell us when conclusions come
logically from premises - and therefore which arguments are well-formed
- but that's largely an exercise of logic, which is properly considered
mathematics and not philosophy, and that doesn't help us distinguish
which arguments that come logically from their premises are based on
true premises.
Well logic and reasoning and your accepted variants thereof, are derived
from useless philosophical discussions.
If everything is philosophy then nothing is.
Not everything is philosophy. That's why I said their argument
could be - it might be conceivable their dispute may over something else entirely - who knows?
How strange it must be to be a philosopher walking down the street,
seeing people - the baker, the bricklayer, the typesetter - engaged in
activities that philosophers have been told they made possible. What a
sense of one's own importance one must have when one believes that the
/entire scope of human endeavor/ owes its existence to one's graduate
thesis!
The forefathers of philosophy that influenced our culture and thinking to the point we don't even think about it anymore are pretty much dead so they are not arrogantly strutting around. The philosophers of today have to try and get the same post mortem appreciation - though some might get it while alive.
You are aware that verificationism cannot itself be verified, right?
Not philosophically, no, which is my entire point.
It cannot be verified at all by any system you care to think up.
Philosophy simplycan't even detect the /obvious rightness/ of empiricism. It's so useless
it can't even detect what everyone, even children, know - seeing is believing.
Lol, the obvious rightness of empiricism. Classic gold. Arrogance indeed - your philosophy is so obviously right, it doesn't need justifying. Is seeing believing or is believing seeing? I don't believe something is real just because some part of my brain tells me it is - otherwise I'd fall for an optical illusion completely and utterly, even when I knew the 'trick'.
I doubt the Dean is going to close the Philosophy department just
because I don't see any intellectual merit in the field. For one thing,
they'd have to close down Theology and Economics, next.
And anyway, graduate students /do/ need to get laid. The study of
philosophy has always had merit in /that/ application. So by all means,
let people continue to dirty themselves in the Philosodumpster. I'm
simply not willing to pretend that they're doing anything useful.
You don't have to believe the subject is valuable if you don't want to. However, given that our entire society is built on the bones of philosophy, that your constitution is written with the blood of battles over philosophy. Ethics? Not useful. Except when we want to convince people that women shouldn't be raped, then a moral debate might be worthy. Want to have an argument, then the modes of debate of reason and of logic might be worthy.
The only thing you have, in my opinion, succesfully argued against is metaphysics. And then only just, and probably only because I already agreed with you anyway.
Sorry crashfrog, but what you said runs counter to everything I know so,
since we are both fans of evidence, the dispute can be settled that way.
Do you have any?
Only what I've presented so far. As I gain more, I'll let you know.
If the evidence you have presented so far is all the evidence you currently have then you have no evidence - only argument.
Philosophy is bunk indeed! Cast your point into the flames and be done with it - your argument just refuted itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 7:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 9:59 AM Modulous has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2568 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 86 of 307 (431447)
10-31-2007 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
10-30-2007 3:00 PM


Models and Metamodels
From my experience working with actual scientists I can inform you that the concerns of so-called "philosophy of science" are remote irrelevancies to the day-to-day work of scientists. Indeed the number of scientists I've ever met who give any thought to philosophy of science are few and far between.
Car driver: I want to know how to drive my car faster. I don't really care how my engine works.
Engineer: I want to know how to make the carburettor more efficient. I don't really care about the physics of gases.
Scientist: I want to know how gases act at extreme pressures. I don't really care how knowledge works.
Philosopher: I want to know what we mean when we say, 'I know'. I don't drive a car.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2007 3:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 10-31-2007 9:56 AM JavaMan has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 234 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 307 (431472)
10-31-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
10-28-2007 3:05 PM


Hume's volumes
"Volume" is a meaningful word. It doesn't mean extract.
I don't understand what you mean here.
If you were still confused let's expand Hume's quote:
quote:
The existence, therefore, of any being can only be proved by arguments from its cause or its effect; and these arguments are founded entirely on experience. If we reason a priori, anything may appear able to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of a man control the planets in their orbits. It is only experience, which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. Such is the foundation of moral reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour.
...
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion
You can read the whole section at your leisure here. Basically he says: here is my idea on how we can know anything about any entity, if we accept this idea, then the conclusion must be that abstract metaphysics and theology are sophistry and illusion. The 'volumes' he was speaking of are books in libraries that have been metaphorically overrun by people who are persuaded of Hume's principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-28-2007 3:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 88 of 307 (431480)
10-31-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Archer Opteryx
10-29-2007 12:43 PM


Archer(my bold) writes:
Logically, two avenues exist for salvaging the OP.
1. Admit that some philosophical discussions have merit.
This option preserves your attack at the expense of your thesis. You discard the original thesis: 'All philosophical questions are BS'. You replace it with a new thesis: 'Some philosophies are BS but mine is not.' You may now proceed with your attack, showing why others' answers to these questions are so bad and your answers so much better. Readers will weigh what you say and make their own decisions.
This is, of course, what all philosophers do.
2. Declare your opening post BS, the discussion BS, ask that the thread be closed, and walk off.
This option preserves your thesis at the expense of your attack. Abandoning the project shows you really do believe philosophical discussions to be a waste of time. The action follows logically from the belief.
This does appear to be logical, and would even be interesting in relation to the O.P. if Quetzal had said "All philosophical questions are B.S."
The trouble is, he doesn't. Perhaps philosophical strawmen are B.S.
He cries bullshit on certain types of philosophical questions, and claims that the answers given to these via philosophy can only be subjective. So he's really on your suggested new thesis: "Some philosophies are bullshit but mine is not" anyway.
However, he can't use subjective philosophy to prove his point because:
Quetzal writes:
Whenever "truth" (small "t") claims are made, the use of philosophy and/or religion should play no part in evaluating those claims. Only, and let me emphasize this, only, has the scientific method EVER in history provided valid understanding of the world/universe that we inhabit. I think this is perhaps one reason you have suffered here.
So can the "truth" of the uselessness of "meaning of life" type philosophy be proved scientifically, I wonder?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2007 12:43 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 307 (431485)
10-31-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
10-31-2007 2:09 AM


quote:
Isn't it at least somewhat instructive that the only way it seems philosophy can be defended is for its defenders to act like complete assholes?
ROTFLMAO!!
Woe to the retail shop owner in a college town who hires philosophy majors.
All those I have worked with, to a person, have been PITAs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2007 2:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2419 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 307 (431486)
10-31-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by JavaMan
10-31-2007 4:57 AM


Re: Models and Metamodels
quote:
Car driver: I want to know how to drive my car faster. I don't really care how my engine works.
And we can determine when the car goes faster, or if it doesn't.
quote:
Engineer: I want to know how to make the carburettor more efficient. I don't really care about the physics of gases.
And we can determine when a carburator becomes more efficient, or if it doesn't.
quote:
Scientist: I want to know how gases act at extreme pressures. I don't really care how knowledge works.
And we can determine the actions of gases under extreme pressures.
quote:
Philosopher: I want to know what we mean when we say, 'I know'. I don't drive a car.
So, how do we know when the philosopher gets the right answer, or has a wrong answer?
There is no way to tell.
So what's the point of asking unanswerable questions?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 4:57 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by JavaMan, posted 10-31-2007 5:25 PM nator has replied
 Message 116 by JavaMan, posted 11-01-2007 3:13 AM nator 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