Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone, and my senior paper
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


(1)
Message 1 of 70 (692763)
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


Hello everyone. I stumbled upon this website doing a search for my senior paper. It looks interesting and I think a lot of you would be interested in my senior paper. I would be more than willing to post it on here when it is finished because I think a lot of people would find it valuable. Though I do intend to read on here, I will not be getting into many discussions until the end of the semester, because I should be working on my paper and not spending time in forums
I will start by telling you a little bit about myself before I get to the focus of my research
My name is Kevin. I am 26, married, with 2 kids. I was raised Christian (Lutheran,) as was my wife. My wife went to an all girl’s Catholic college and received her BS in Nursing with a minor in Theology. Our religious views, I would consider similar, but that whole God thing seems to be the difference. We both consider ourselves agnostic (we do not think one can know whether or not there is a God or higher power) but I lean more towards the atheist view, where as she leans more towards the Deist or Theist view. Both of our sons are baptized and we plan to raise them Christian. It was important to her and her family, but I could give a crap either way
Now the important stuff
I am currently a student at the University of Minnesota. I have majors in History and Religious studies, with a minor in Jewish Studies. I am formerly an Education major and an Ancient Mediterranean Studies major. I started as a pre-Kinesiology major. I have a detailed rundown on my blog Blog not found but I will just tell you about it briefly here.
I started as a Religious Studies major and then added the Ancient Mediterranean Studies major because a lot of the classes overlapped or were relevant. My original plan was to be a teacher, so I majored in Education. With the education requirements I was only 2 classes away from graduating with a history major, so I picked up a history major. Already knowing I would not graduate in 4 years, I dropped the AMS major.
What exactly do I study in those areas? I am a fan of Big History. I like getting the big picture of the history of the world. Because of that, my Edu major, and my other majors, I am very well rounded and could have a few Areas of Concentration. An AoC is defined by 4 classes in a single area. Based on that definition, I could have these AoCs
Religious Studies:
-Judaism (my minor)
-Christianity
-The Abrahamic tradition (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)
-Ancient Mediterranean Religions (Judaism, Greek/Roman mythology, Near Eastern religions, Egyptian religion, Persian religions, and could be early Christianity and even Islam)
-Religion in American
-The Creationism-Evolution controversy.
History:
Ancient History
Middle Eastern History
Western/U.S. History
Modern History
Relevant to this site is my study of the Creationism-Evolution controversy. With an interest in religion and education I became especially interested in the Evolution/Creationism Controversy. I started with a class called Understanding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. This opened up two different paths of study. It opened up the path American history and understanding the court cases related to the topic. It also led to a study of the Constitution and the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. This led to a study of the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment Philosophy. It also opened the path to the study of the history of science.
The history of science is more important, in my opinion, than a degree in science. Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying? This has led me to take literally every class the University offers on the topic. I have taken classes in many different disciplines on the topic. Here are a few of them
Religion and Ethics in Educational Policy (EDU)
Understanding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy (BIOL)
The Evolution and Biology of Sex (BIOL)
Philosophy of Religion (PHIL)
Scientific Thought (PHIL)
Philosophy of Biology (PHIL)
The Darwinian Revolution (HSCI)
Religion and US Founding (HIST)
Life on Earth: Perspectives of Biology (HSCI)
Science, Technology, and Society: Darwin and Design (PHIL)
That leads to my senior paper...
This is a very brief summary on what it will be about
The summarization of my project is quite simple. I intend to take the different editions of On the Origin of Species and The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and examine the additions and changes he made to them. Changing his editions was his way of answering critics. I intend to focus on the religious parts specifically. I will then attempt to explain the reason for these changes by comparing them to letters, his journal, and his biographies. His letters will address issues that he was talking with his friends about and his biography will talk about the religious issues he had with his wife. One claim that is made is that he tried to hide his work from his wife because of her devout religious views, and he did not want to hurt her. The religious issues that deal with his wife specifically are talked about in his biography.
What I intend to show is that Darwin was not some atheist that was trying to do away with God, but was actually religious himself and concerned about the religious implications of his work. I want to show that he struggled with the implications of his theory with no only the public, but with his wife. I also want to address the claim that he became an agnostic because of the theory. The evidence seems to suggest that the reason for his agnosticism was due to the death of his daughter, and not his theory. This will give us a valuable insight and view of Charles Darwin that is not very public and common to most people. I think it is a Charles Darwin that we need to expose and get out there because of all the issues we are still having today with his theory.
I hope many of you will find this project useful in your personal lives and I hope to talk to all of you in the forum in the near future.
-Kevin

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2013 11:50 AM KevinAthans has replied
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 12:19 PM KevinAthans has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 03-07-2013 1:18 PM KevinAthans has replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2013 3:22 PM KevinAthans has replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 03-07-2013 8:47 PM KevinAthans has not replied
 Message 70 by glowby, posted 03-13-2013 6:20 PM KevinAthans has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 70 (692768)
03-07-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


Your paper sounds extremely ambitious. I look forward to any updates on your project you care to provide.
What do you plan to do with yourself upon graduation?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 11:22 AM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 3 of 70 (692770)
03-07-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NoNukes
03-07-2013 11:50 AM


Not sure yet...I did have everything planned out, but with 2 kids, I just want to start making some money...so plans changed. Obviously I would like to do something related to my studies, but that may not happen, at least not right away. I would like to go to grad school but my wife wants to get her doctorates before I do that...Wish I had a more clear answer on my plans...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2013 11:50 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2013 1:13 PM KevinAthans has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 70 (692771)
03-07-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


Welcome to EvC. Your paper sounds interesting.
You asked:
The history of science is more important, in my opinion, than a degree in science. Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying?
By studying it and figuring out what it is. I don't see how the origins of the idea matters at all.
How would these guys showing "that two randomly acquired mutations within the prokaryotic FumC sequence are sufficient to cause substantial dual targeting by reverse translocation" be hindered by not having an understanding or the origin of the Theory of Evolution?
I don't see how not knowing the origin of, say Newtons classical mechanics, would be prevent me from studying the velocity of a ball based on the derivative of its position with respect to time. All I need is the equation and the data. The history of the mechanics is totally irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 11:22 AM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 5 of 70 (692773)
03-07-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 12:19 PM


Every science is different but in my area of focus, which is biology, I constantly see studies and experiments done that do not need to be. They are a waste of money and time. A lot of biologists ask questions that they would not ask if the simply understood the theory. Not everything has a purpose and we should not be asking questions like that. I mean do we really need a study to explain why a blind mole would have red hair? Do we really need to do study after study to show the purpose of the female orgasm? I think not
Edit:Why do you think there are a number of scientists that deny Darwin's theory? They cite the exact things that Darwin already addressed in his book. Darwin KNEW where his theory was weak and pointed it out...and people still point out those issues today as if he did not realize that himself.
Sorry another edit: Also, do you know how many people and scientists think that Darwin's theory is a theory of the origin of life? Darwin never said anything about the origin of life, nor did he say life all came from a single ancestor.
It also allows one to address critics and understand why modern science works. Many creationists look at science as if it is some type of religion. By being able to explain the history of scientific thought, we can show that it is not just some faith based idea. It is important to understand how the ideas came about and how they were built on each other. Newton was not just some guy sitting in isolation that came up with these ideas, nor was Darwin. Darwin’s main ideas come from an economist and a geologist, respectively.
Would you be surprised to find out that Newton was actually talking about God in the bit when he explains his theories? Newton was far more interested in God than he was physics. Understanding this bridges that gap that has arisen in between science and religion. Most of the greatest thinkers in history believed in a God. See how that relates to this website specifically? It is my opinion that one should always know the context of things and not just random facts
Edited by KevinAthans, : No reason given.
Edited by KevinAthans, : adding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 03-07-2013 1:18 PM KevinAthans has not replied
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:28 PM KevinAthans has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22705
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 6 of 70 (692778)
03-07-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 12:17 PM


Hi KevinAthans,
Welcome aboard! I just wanted to comment about a few things. Concerning this first thing I'll be rather blunt:
I just want to start making some money...
If you have outside sources of income to draw upon or are on full fellowship or your parents gave you a house or for whatever reason you are not hurting for money then just ignore this.
But if not then with 2 kids and a wife who wants to get her "doctorates," and after that you'll be getting your doctorates, then you need serious money. You and your wife do not want to be entering the full time job market owing $400,000 with training for jobs that have entry salaries of only $35,000/year. It's great to follow your interests, but make sure there's the kind of training mixed in there somewhere that allows at least one of you to get a job that makes real money, otherwise you'll never dig out of the debt burden.
You mentioned American history, thought I'd mention I'm in the middle of David McCullough's biography of John Adams.
Lastly, about Darwin, I've read a couple biographies and it seems to me that his naturalistic studies were already providing a significant push toward agnostic thinking long before his daughter's death. Do you have evidence leading you to suspect Darwin's tendency toward agnosticism only came after his daughter's death? In other words, are you pursuing this because it is something about Darwin that it appeals to you to believe, or do you have material evidence? From what I've read it can at best be argued that his theological doubts continued turning more toward certainty with the death of his daughter. I don't think there's evidence to support anything more than that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:17 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 70 (692779)
03-07-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


Welcome to evcforum.
KevinAthans writes:
Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works.
Most physicists have not read Newton's works.
History might be important to you and to what interests you. But it is not important to science. Unlike theology and philosophy, science is evidence-based, not tradition based.
I'm not a biologist. But, it is my impression based on what biologists write, that biologists are far more likely to have read Darwin's works than physicists are to have read Newton's works. But they read it, not because it is important to their science, but because biologists are affected by culture wars, particularly the attacks on Darwinism.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 11:22 AM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:32 PM nwr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22705
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 8 of 70 (692780)
03-07-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 12:38 PM


KevinAthans writes:
Darwin never said anything about the origin of life...
Not in any depth, but you might want to check out the last sentence of Origin of Species.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:38 PM KevinAthans has not replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 9 of 70 (692791)
03-07-2013 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
03-07-2013 1:13 PM


Percy-
Thanks for the advice, but we understand this. May as tell you a little more about me...We have some debt but we are alright with money. My wife works as an RN and makes over 60K a year. We recently bought a house just based on her income. On top of that I have the G.I Bill. I get paid to go to school...if you add up my GI Bill, military pay, and income from my job, I made almost 30K last year, and that is as a full time student...We own both our cars out-right and have been paying off the debt we have. Her school loans will be paid off in 5-6 years and that is when she would go back to school. I do not know if I will ever get the chance for a graduate degree, but we know where we are going...
No, I am not claiming that his views of agnosticism came only after the death of his daughter, simply that that was the biggest factor. When I intend to show is that religion did affect him and his family, and also that he was concered about the religious beliefs of other people, hence the reason he modified his book over time. I am doing a comparison of the different editions and looking for the reasons for his changes.
I did not realize the other reply was from you also, so I will mention it here. I am very familiar with the phrase you speak of...Oddly enough, that is the OPPOSITE of how most people see Darwin. More importantly, however, the phrase is not in his original. That was added in later editions. That fact and the reasons behind it are exactly the point of my research.
Edited by KevinAthans, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-07-2013 1:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 70 (692792)
03-07-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 12:38 PM


Every science is different but in my area of focus, which is biology, I constantly see studies and experiments done that do not need to be. They are a waste of money and time. A lot of biologists ask questions that they would not ask if the simply understood the theory. Not everything has a purpose and we should not be asking questions like that. I mean do we really need a study to explain why a blind mole would have red hair? Do we really need to do study after study to show the purpose of the female orgasm? I think not
How would them simply understanding the theory cause those biologists to realize that they don't need to study those things?
Why do you think there are a number of scientists that deny Darwin's theory?
Because the ramifications interfere with their religion, period. I don't know of any scientists who deny Darwin's theory because of scientific issues. The one's that I've seen that say that they do, say that to hide the fact that its really a religious issue.
Also, do you know how many people and scientists think that Darwin's theory is a theory of the origin of life?
No, but they don't have to study the history of Darwin to learn that it isn't.
It also allows one to address critics and understand why modern science works. Many creationists look at science as if it is some type of religion. By being able to explain the history of scientific thought, we can show that it is not just some faith based idea.
If creationists could be taught, then they wouldn't be creationists any more. They don't want to accept the science because of thier religion. I don't think the history of scientific thought is going to help.
It is important to understand how the ideas came about and how they were built on each other. Newton was not just some guy sitting in isolation that came up with these ideas, nor was Darwin. Darwin’s main ideas come from an economist and a geologist, respectively.
Here's my point: Without knowing anything about any of that stuff, I can still realize that the random mutation + natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth. That's it. The theory works and it works regardless of how much history I know.
Would you be surprised to find out that Newton was actually talking about God in the bit when he explains his theories?
OMG, sooo suprised! Guess what: I can still calculate the velocity of a ball from the derivative of its position with respect to time both before and after knowing that. So why did it matter at all?
Newton was far more interested in God than he was physics. Understanding this bridges that gap that has arisen in between science and religion.
What gap? (see my signature)
The only gap is between science and fundamentalists. But that's because fundamentalists cannot learn and leaning is what science is all about. Even if its something that you think is completely stupid, like why a blind mole would have red hair, scientists investigate it because they want to learn (or get a grant).
Most of the greatest thinkers in history believed in a God. See how that relates to this website specifically? It is my opinion that one should always know the context of things and not just random facts
I'm not talking about random facts. I'm talking about a scientific understanding of a phenomenon and how its independent of the history of how that understanding came about. I don't need to know about Madam Curie's personal life to understand how radioactive isotopes behave.
I think you're really missing this big part of science. Scientific explanations are made specifically so that you don't have to understand the history of how the theory came about to get the concept across. You can go in the lab and perform the experiments yourself and learn the theories without even knowing anything about the person that originally came up with it.

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 12:38 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 11 of 70 (692796)
03-07-2013 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
03-07-2013 1:18 PM


All I am going to say to that, is that view is the very reason you should study the history of science. In addition to that, I would argue that history IS science. Sure, there are varying definitions of history, but one of the revolutions in historiography was scientific reasoning. We look at history and science much in the same ways. Scientists look at rock layers and fossils the same as historians look at artifacts and ruins. They use inductive reasoning to formulate an accurate account of what took place. If you want my opinion, history is science. But if you don't share my view, I am fine with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 03-07-2013 1:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 03-07-2013 5:34 PM KevinAthans has replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 12 of 70 (692797)
03-07-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 2:28 PM


Why so hostile? There is much about this topic you do not understand...If you do not like my view, fine. But your attitude towards me and the utter disregard for what I am saying is more similar to the dogmatic views of the creationists that will not even hear the other side of the argument. Unless you want to listen to my side instead of shouting your already known truth, I have no desire to discuss things with you. Keep worshiping your science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:55 PM KevinAthans has replied
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 03-07-2013 9:37 PM KevinAthans has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 70 (692798)
03-07-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 2:39 PM


Oh, I see. "Agree with me or I'll insult you".
Don't be so thin-skinned. You've presented your ideas on a debate board and they're going to be challenged.
I don't feel any hostility but the tone that you're perceiving it from comes from the fact that you've said that you think that the history of science is more important that the science itself, that scientists cannot understand what they're studying if they don't understand the history, and that if scientists did study their history more then they wouldn't waste time investigating so much stupid stuff.
I have not utterly disregarded these inane position of yours, I've explained why they are incorrect. I've asked pertinent questions that you've now avoided. And you've also now replied with hostility and insult.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 2:39 PM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(8)
Message 14 of 70 (692800)
03-07-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KevinAthans
03-07-2013 11:22 AM


The history of science is more important, in my opinion, than a degree in science. Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying?
This is a very strange idea.
What biologists are studying is nature, not the writings of Darwin.
This is different from theology. In Christian theology, most theologians admit that they can't read the mind of God directly, instead the Bible is taken to be the word of God, and the stuff they say has to be referred back to its agreement with the text of the Bible.
But in biology, the touchstone is observational and experimental data about biology. This can be studied directly, and so it is possible to find data that contradicts Darwin, and the conclusion people would come to is "So, Darwin was wrong about stuff". To take an example, Darwin strongly doubted that all the modern breeds of dog were derived from the same species. But the evidence shows that dogs are all Canis lupus, and what Darwin thought doesn't mater a hill of beans: his opinions are not taken as conclusive nor as even slightly evidential.
In theology, the foundational documents are the most precious: one can hardly claim to improve on the Bible without also claiming to have obtained a new revelation from God (as in the case of Joseph Smith and the founding of Mormonism). But in science, the foundational documents are most likely the worst. They were the crude first sketches of the idea. I myself, though no genius, know more about gravity than Newton, more about chemistry than Lavoisier, and more about evolution than Darwin, because we have learned more stuff since first they wrote, and I know this stuff and they didn't. Newton, Lavoisier, and Darwin are honored not because their works were the last word on a certain subject, but because they wrote the first words on certain subjects. The first, tentative, often erroneous words.
The study of foundational documents is therefore as pointless to scientists as it is essential to theologians. There is no particular reason why a biologist should read Darwin any more than there is a reason why a physicist should read Newton's Principia. Indeed, I've never met a physicist who has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 11:22 AM KevinAthans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by KevinAthans, posted 03-07-2013 4:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 03-07-2013 8:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 03-08-2013 6:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
KevinAthans
Junior Member (Idle past 4152 days)
Posts: 16
From: Apple Valley, MN, USA
Joined: 03-06-2013


Message 15 of 70 (692803)
03-07-2013 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
03-07-2013 2:55 PM


You insulted me. I do not care if you agree with me or not. I am not thin-skinned. If you read the title to my thread you would see that I was simply saying hello and telling you all about my senior project. I wasn't trying to start an argument, just make those that are interested, aware of my project. If I wanted to debate the importance of the history of science, I would have made a thread about it. All I am going to say is that I do not agree with you and if you want to have a civil conversation about it, I will at a future date. Until then, can you just treat this as my "hello" thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-07-2013 4:12 PM KevinAthans 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