Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 286 of 1725 (574602)
08-16-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Straggler
08-16-2010 1:40 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Hi, Straggler.
I replied upthread to Xongsmith on this topic (Message 264), but, by dint of its being a reply to Xongsmith, it seems to have been ignored by the people I actually wanted to see it.
Anyway, I agree that RAZD is losing the debate with Bluegenes. But, I don’t think it’s because he’s wrong: I think it’s because his raz-otechnic sermons are not getting the message across.
I think there is a fatal flaw in Bluegenes’ theory, and I think Xongsmith has caught on to it, but I’m honestly not satisfied with Xongsmith’s presentation of it, so I will step in to offer my own.
Here is Bluegenes’ original statement:
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
Bluegenes is treating this argument as if this falsification condition has only one criterion: (1) existence of a given entity.
But, in fact, there are actually two criteria there: (1) the origin of the entity; (2) the demonstration of a given attribute of the entity. Thus, Bluegenes is asking RAZD to demonstrate two things.
In the case of all rabbits come from rabbits, Bluegenes is asking RAZD to demonstrate that (1) a given rabbit came from something other than a rabbit, and that (2) the rabbit is indeed a rabbit.
In the case of all supernatural beings come from human imagination, Bluegenes is asking RAZD to demonstrate that (1) a given supernatural being came from something other than human imagination, and that (2) the being is indeed supernatural.
Criterion 1 for the rabbit theory is identical to criterion 1 for the supernatural theory.
Criterion 2, however, is not identical. I submit that, while it is possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some animal is a rabbit, it is not possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some being is supernatural.
The hypothesis X is a rabbit can be tested against the hypothesis X is not a rabbit using many known statistic and logical methodologies.
The hypothesis X is supernatural cannot be tested using those same statistical and logical methodologies. So, instead, one tests an alternative, naturalistic hypothesis, such as X is Y, against the hypothesis X is not Y.
One can assign confidence to the hypothesis X is Y, or to the hypothesis X is not Y, but, since X is not Y is not the logical equivalent of X is supernatural (that would be affirming the consequent), no confidence can be assigned to the conclusion that X is supernatural at all.
Thus, the tests for criterion 2 is these two theories are not the same, and the two theories are not parallel, as Bluegenes has argued that they are.
Furthermore, Bluegenes’ theory is not strictly falsifiable, because the criterion for falsification cannot be entered into a statistical or logical test.
That said, the only time this objection is meaningful is when we can demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer to the question, is it supernatural? is at least ambiguous. I’ll admit that I cannot demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer is ambiguous, so my objection here is only one of academic principle.
But, I happen to feel that principles are important.
Edited by Bluejay, : "mid" codes can't have a space after the "=" sign.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:32 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 288 by nwr, posted 08-16-2010 9:27 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 289 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2010 11:49 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 287 of 1725 (574606)
08-16-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Blue Jay
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
If we found a man who it could be confirmed was born from a virgin, whose DNA reflected this rather bizzarre happenstance and who seemed to be unbounded by the laws of nature in terms of the things he could do - Do you think that this dude would qualify as "supernatural"?
I think if this dude turned up claiming to be the son of God RAZD could justifiably claim victory in this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Blue Jay, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 8:34 AM Straggler has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 288 of 1725 (574612)
08-16-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Blue Jay
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Blue Jay writes:
Anyway, I agree that RAZD is losing the debate with Bluegenes. But, I don’t think it’s because he’s wrong: I think it’s because his raz-otechnic sermons are not getting the message across.
I think that sums it up reasonably well.
I can't really comment on whether RAZD is right or wrong. His "raz-otechnic sermons" (as you call them) make it difficult to follow what he is arguing.
I do agree, however, that what bluegenes presents as his theory is not anything that I would consider to qualify as a scientific theory. Perhaps it can be called a philosophic theory (if there is such a thing), but not a scientific theory.
I don't argue whether it is falsifiable, because I think falsificationism is nonsense. However, a scientific theory has associated empirical principles that connect the symbols (or terminology) used in the theory to actual real world data. And I don't see that.
To be specific, the bluegenes "theory" needs empirical principles that I could follow in order to collect data that would identify a supernatural being. Without such principles, it is only a word game and has no scientific content.
There's probably a lot of similarity in where you see problems and where I see problems. The big difference, is that I don't try to put it in terms of the usual definition of "scientific theory" (such as is often expounded at evcforum). And that's because I strongly disagree with that usual definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Blue Jay, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2010 9:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 289 of 1725 (574630)
08-16-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Blue Jay
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
The original bluegenes text was, as I'm led to believe, this, from Message 167:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
I'll regard attempts at dismissing the theory without accepting the debate proposition as empty rhetoric and cowardice.
Bluejay requotes the bluegenes quote as
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
There 6 clauses bluegenes threw up there. Bluejay gets hung up on the 3rd clause.
bluegenes sort of presented a table of contents for the proposed debate and everyone seems to be leaping up to Chapter 3.
RAZD did not jump to Chapter 3. He could look at the table of contents and notice that Chapter 1 would be making a blanket claim. He notes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now we, in our worldviews, may not see the claim as all that extraordinary. But perhaps it is as if, having reached page 2134 of some huge unabridged dictionary and reaching the word "ungulate" and tired and exhausted and out of time for turning these delicate onion-skinned pages of this magnificent tome, the reader concludes than the word "zebra" does not exist in this book. It is an extraordinary claim.
He could look at Chapter 2 and note that a high level of confidence would be interesting to see supported.
He could look at Chapter 3 and note that that was something that would be dealt with later, but he understand why Chapter 3 is there. This will not be a version of Last Thursdayism, recast in some new form..
He could look at Chapter 4 and note that that would probably not be an issue - yes, no problem there.
Then he could look at Chapter 5 and there he gets the mother lode - bluegenes is claiming this is a strong theory and - WHAT IS THIS? - he's claiming he has "plenty of evidence"! Wow.
He could continue to Chapter 6's listing in the table of contents and accept those terms without argument.
So he accepts the challenge and early on in the debate wants to see some of this plentiful evidence ("Bring it on!").
Some of you seem to be hung up on Chapter 3, while RAZD is wondering about the whole book (and Chapter 5 in particular). He doesn't even need to argue Chapter 3 yet. Let's get started with the table of contents.
It was bluegenes who said he had plenty of evidence....
It was bluegenes who said:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
Bluejay goes on to eventually say:
Criterion 1 for the rabbit theory is identical to criterion 1 for the supernatural theory.
Criterion 2, however, is not identical. I submit that, while it is possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some animal is a rabbit, it is not possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some being is supernatural.
...[details elided over]...
Thus, the tests for criterion 2 is these two theories are not the same, and the two theories are not parallel, as Bluegenes has argued that they are.
Furthermore, Bluegenes’ theory is not strictly falsifiable, because the criterion for falsification cannot be entered into a statistical or logical test.
That said, the only time this objection is meaningful is when we can demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer to the question, is it supernatural? is at least ambiguous. I’ll admit that I cannot demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer is ambiguous, so my objection here is only one of academic principle.
But, I happen to feel that principles are important.
Which is all very well and good, IMHO. I might add, however, that bluegenes would probably be willing to concede that part of the rabbit analogy that doesn't work. Like I would be willing to concede that part of the dictionary page turning analogy that doesn't work.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Blue Jay, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 5:16 AM xongsmith has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 290 of 1725 (574647)
08-17-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by xongsmith
08-16-2010 11:49 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I remain unsure what your problem is with bluegenes argument.
Are you disputing that there is evidence of humans inventing supernatural concepts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2010 11:49 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by xongsmith, posted 08-17-2010 4:23 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 291 of 1725 (574649)
08-17-2010 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by onifre
08-16-2010 3:51 PM


What Are We Disagreeing About
I have been thinking about this as it is bugging me as to what is we actually disagree about here. I couldn't put my finger on it at first but I think I have worked it out.
You seem to be trying to define the supernatural out of existence by simply insisting that if something turns out to be real it, by definition, must be natural.
But I don’t think this is either justified or useful. If entities exist which are neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature (e.g. Jesus Christ as conceived by Christians such as Buz and Slev) then these entities are both real and supernatural.
That these entities almost certainly don’t exist isn’t really the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by onifre, posted 08-16-2010 3:51 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by onifre, posted 08-17-2010 2:02 PM Straggler has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 292 of 1725 (574656)
08-17-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by xongsmith
08-16-2010 5:20 PM


Re: Mutual admiration society? - Peanut Gallery
quote:
Or, are you saying that just the writing of the word pair "invisible pink", or the pair "immaterial pink", is, by fiat, objective scientific evidence of its fictional origin?
Well NWR answered that question.
RAZD has made it clear that the only point of the debate is to demonstrate that bluegenes cannot call his statement a theory. So it is irrelevant whether it is true or false.
What constitutes a theory?
Bluegenes states in Message 7:
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?
He gave his statement and his observation that the statement is based on.
Is his statement a theory? It doesn't matter whether it is true or false if all RAZD is addressing is whether it is a theory or not. If it can't be considered a theory, then whether it is strong or not is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2010 5:20 PM xongsmith has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 293 of 1725 (574674)
08-17-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Straggler
08-16-2010 8:32 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
If we found a man who it could be confirmed was born from a virgin, whose DNA reflected this rather bizzarre happenstance and who seemed to be unbounded by the laws of nature in terms of the things he could do - Do you think that this dude would qualify as "supernatural"?
Have you ever watched Star Trek?
How many aliens that "seemed to be unbounded by the laws of nature" turned out to have perfectly rational explanations?
Being convinced by such a show would not be a rational or logical conclusion: it would be an emotional conclusion.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 8:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Huntard, posted 08-17-2010 8:58 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 9:20 AM Blue Jay has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 294 of 1725 (574677)
08-17-2010 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 8:34 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I wonder what the explanation for the Q is then, I certainly don't remmeber one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 8:34 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 295 of 1725 (574679)
08-17-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 8:34 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
We agree that there is a difference between genuinely supernatural feats and advanced technology — Yes?
The question here is whether or not we can consider bluegenes criteria to have been met by my example.
Bluejay writes:
How many aliens that "seemed to be unbounded by the laws of nature" turned out to have perfectly rational explanations?
It wouldn’t just be that the dude in question seemed unbounded by the laws of nature. It would be that the dude in question resembled so closely the supernatural object of belief that those who claim to have had supernatural experiences and the like have continually claimed exists.
You are quite right that it could be an advanced alien playing Jesus. You are quite right to say that it may be impossible for us to definitively tell the difference between advanced and seemingly inexplicable aliens and the genuinely supernatural, given our own limitations.
But if this dude, claiming to be the son of God, raising the dead and whatnot, did actually turn up I think it would be rather churlish of me to continue to rebuke supernaturalists for talking un-evidenced garbage. I think at that point I would have to hold my hands up and say You guys may have been onto something after all. This religious stuff has a lot more validity than I had ever thought. It appears that I as an atheist may well have been wrong
If this dude turned up I would say that bluegenes theory was in rather serious trouble.
Wouldn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 8:34 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 10:17 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 298 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-17-2010 11:23 AM Straggler has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 296 of 1725 (574695)
08-17-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
08-17-2010 9:20 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
We agree that there is a difference between genuinely supernatural feats and advanced technology — Yes?
Yes, we agree here.
-----
Straggler writes:
If this dude turned up I would say that bluegenes theory was in rather serious trouble.
Wouldn't you?
The principle espoused by this argument is that current knowledge can be used as a surrogate for absolute knowledge.
If we are reasoning with this principle, then how do we avoid reasoning that all things we cannot currently explain by science are supernatural?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 9:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 10:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 297 of 1725 (574703)
08-17-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 10:17 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
The principle espoused by this argument is that current knowledge can be used as a surrogate for absolute knowledge.
No. I don't know what principle you are applying. But that is most definitely NOT what I am saying.
If the religious methods of knowing which I have treated with such scorn turn out to be able to demonstrate themselves as reliable then it would be overly stubborn of me to continue to deny their validity wouldn't it?
Christians have been claiming the existence of an entity specifically like the one under consideration on the basis of subjective experiences and textual interpretation for some time. Thus far these methods of knowing have proven themselves to be wholly unreliable and to amount to nothing more than a strong sense of personal conviction. But if the Jesus dude under discussion turned out to be real..........
I don't see how I could continue to tell supernaturalists that their beliefs were unevidenced and atheists would have to ask themselves some serious questions.
Surely? I cannot believe that you (of all people) are telling me I should be unquestioningly atheistic no matter what evidence ever presents itself?
If we are reasoning with this principle, then how do we avoid reasoning that all things we cannot currently explain by science are supernatural?
Whooaaah there!! What principle are you applying here? It seems like a very dangerous principle and not one which I shall be employing or subscribing to.
Until religious/spiritual methods of knowing do demonstrate themselves as being remotely worthy of any consideration I would strongly advise that we continue to treat claims of the supernatural with the utmost scepticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 10:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2010 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 298 of 1725 (574706)
08-17-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
08-17-2010 9:20 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Hi Straggler
Sorry if I've missed anything in scanning the 2 threads that might answer this question, but how do you reconcile these 2 statements:
Straggler says:
If entities exist which are neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature (e.g. Jesus Christ as conceived by Christians such as Buz and Slev) then these entities are both real and supernatural.
Straggler says:
But if this dude, claiming to be the son of God, raising the dead and whatnot, did actually turn up I think it would be rather churlish of me to continue to rebuke supernaturalists for talking un-evidenced garbage.
What I don't understand is, if there is such a thing as supernatural that you describe as being "neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature", how could anything supernatural ever "turn up" and present itself to you - or to anyone?
If anything could ever connect with something natural, such as yourself, by what other method than a natural one could it do so, if we are only able to detect or connect with natural things?
If things we call "natural" are ever able to connect with things we call "supernatural", surely we can then re-classify those 2 things under a single term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 9:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 12:27 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 299 of 1725 (574713)
08-17-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-17-2010 11:23 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
JUC writes:
What I don't understand is, if there is such a thing as supernatural that you describe as being "neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature", how could anything supernatural ever "turn up" and present itself to you - or to anyone?
If the second coming of Christ as envisaged by Christians does actually take place then he, being "neither derived from nor subject to any laws of nature", could accurately be described as being supernatural could he not?
If anything could ever connect with something natural, such as yourself, by what other method than a natural one could it do so, if we are only able to detect or connect with natural things?
By virtue of being omnipotent?
If things we call "natural" are ever able to connect with things we call "supernatural", surely we can then re-classify those 2 things under a single term.
If you wanna call Jesus the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent son of God born by miraculous conception and unbounded by any natural laws "natural" you go ahead.
But this would seem to me to be pushing the limit of what we commonly mean by the term "natural" well beyond breaking point.
You seem to be trying to define the supernatural out of existence by simply insisting that if something turns out to be real it, by definition, must be natural.
But I don’t think this is either justified or useful. If entities exist which are neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature (e.g. Jesus Christ as conceived by Christians such as Buz and Slev) then these entities are both real and supernatural.
That these entities almost certainly don’t exist isn’t really the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-17-2010 11:23 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by onifre, posted 08-17-2010 5:02 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 300 of 1725 (574737)
08-17-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Straggler
08-17-2010 5:27 AM


Re: What Are We Disagreeing About
You seem to be trying to define the supernatural out of existence by simply insisting that if something turns out to be real it, by definition, must be natural.
Well sort of, yes. Everything is natural, there is only the natural, no evidence exists for anything else. Never has anyone ever witnessed anything that they could claim to be supernatural, they may say it, but its not honest. The only thing they can say is, I saw something I can't explain. It has been common though, in past cultures, to introduced as a linguistic place filler the word "supernatural" until someone explains it naturally.
In all cases of phenomena, the details of the answer is what we are after, not just a word that satisfies the curiosity. It's the equivilant of saying god-did-it for the origin of the universe. Ok, god-did-it, but how?
Saying supernatural answers nothing, it just introduces a new question - what does supernatural mean?
If entities exist which are neither derived from, nor subject to, any laws of nature (e.g. Jesus Christ as conceived by Christians such as Buz and Slev) then these entities are both real and supernatural.
Sure, in the arena of fiction anything is possible. All you need is trust and a little bit of pixie dust.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 5:27 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2010 12:27 PM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024