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:   Uncovering a Simulation
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 1 of 59 (484666)
09-30-2008 6:10 PM


Evidence points heavily towards us being a part of a simulation. What are our options of unraveling the next level of the mystery? I have an idea that might shed more light on the source of the simulation, and since there are more than a thousand of us here, maybe we could work out a full detailed path to the computer/god. As I see it, we are basically stuck with 2 options:
1. The simulation is run by highly advanced human/alien race. This IMHO is our best bet. If it's a man/alien made simulation, all the universe MUST conform to mathematical equations(software programming). The WHOLE of it. That would mean that a Theory of Everything describing every single interaction in the Universe is possible and likely to be forged. I wonder if that's what motivates the scientists working behind the TOE who are aware that reality is a bluff.
2. God or God know's what, let's call it the UNKNOWN. The worst case scenario for unraveling the mistery - The Lord moves in mysterious ways and being our sheppard, we are meerly sheep who would know only what they are being fed. This scenario is also less likely than the former, as the chances of us discovering that we are part of a simulation designed by god would not be good at all.
In this case, the theory of everything will easily have the desired inch long equation:
U=Ob+Mg
where U stands for the Universe
Ob stands for the observer
and Mg stands for the mind of god
I am willing to work under such a project without pay even if i have to travel abroad. Probably, there are already organisations or at least teams working in that direction.
It's a moral question more than anything else but critically important. Would we allow the participants in a simulated reality to find out who they are?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Fosdick, posted 09-30-2008 7:29 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 09-30-2008 8:00 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 19 by Legend, posted 10-01-2008 4:35 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 53 by johnfolton, posted 10-03-2008 11:50 PM Agobot has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 2 of 59 (484676)
09-30-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
09-30-2008 6:10 PM


U=Ob+Mg
Agobot writes:
In this case, the theory of everything will easily have the desired inch long equation:
U=Ob+Mg
where U stands for the Universe
Ob stands for the observer
and Mg stands for the mind of god
Then it would follow that the observer is equal to the universe minus the mind of god:
Ob = U - Mg.
Handy! I'll use it the next time I recalculate the Schwartzschild radius of the universe.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 09-30-2008 6:10 PM Agobot has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 3 of 59 (484677)
09-30-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
09-30-2008 6:10 PM


Evidence points heavily towards us being a part of a simulation.
It does? What evidence?
Agobot, you seem to be a little...unbalanced...after your physics discussion with cavediver about the nature of reality. Everything from matter to the very concept of distance may just be different perturbations of the quantum field, but that doesn't mean the world we observe is any less real. It's no different from discovering that your body is actually made up of atoms - the end result is still really you.
It's not so much that the Universe is illusory, it's more that we humans have a limited range of observation.
As for the Unvierse "making sense," well, we did evolve to fit the Universe. It rather makes sense that the unvierse makes sense to us, don't you think? I would imagine that, in a Universe where, say, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply and yet life somehow still exists in some fashion, the sentient species of such a Universe would find that their laws of physics make sense to them as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 09-30-2008 6:10 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 4:44 AM Rahvin has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 4 of 59 (484707)
10-01-2008 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rahvin
09-30-2008 8:00 PM


Agobot writes:
Evidence points heavily towards us being a part of a simulation.
Rahvin writes:
It does? What evidence?
Actually there is. That's what prompted Einstein to believe that quantum theory is wrong(and he happens to be the father of that theory). I think it will eventually be proven incomplete(or possibly wrong) and it's obvious something's missing in it, that has to account for what reality is. And since this debate has already taken place in Copenhagen(Interpretation) by physicists that were more "versed" into the nature of reality than both of us, i'll quote A.Einstein:
"The more success the quantum physics has, the sillier it looks. ... I think that a 'particle' must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. ... God does not play dice with the cosmos. (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics)"
Rahvin writes:
Agobot, you seem to be a little...unbalanced...after your physics discussion with cavediver about the nature of reality.
Unbalanced? You could say so but a better word would be "shocked".
As Niel Bohr said "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it."
Rahvin writes:
Everything from matter to the very concept of distance may just be different perturbations of the quantum field, but that doesn't mean the world we observe is any less real. It's no different from discovering that your body is actually made up of atoms - the end result is still really you.
You seem to think like Einstein and he was proven wrong in the 70's. But this is science(=what we know or rather think we know), Einstein can be UN-proven wrong. Science is just our futile human way of trying to understand the complex nature of reality.
It can be wrong. The observational data in QM was right, but it could have been wrongly interpreted. There could be some other laws and phenemena at play that scientists are not aware of.
Rahvin writes:
It's not so much that the Universe is illusory, it's more that we humans have a limited range of observation.
If you religiously believe in science you have to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of wave particle collapse and the theory that your computer is currently both switched off and switched on at the same time. It's so fucked up that i don't believe anything of what scientists are trying to feed me about our world. Call me nuts and everything but I think QM is totally screwed up. My mind cannot accept these interpretations and these interpretations are almost brain-washing and shocking. They are not real, I do believe what I perceive is more real than their stupid, utterly ridiculous findings. I'm just waiting for the day when it will all come crushing to the ground.
After all My reality > a bullshit scientific interpretation
I'm a big fan of Einstein and think he's right - the QM is totally screwed up. Now someone better prove this whole QM nonsense is wrong and give us back the confidence in reality.
These "findings" and interpretations have far reaching consequences. They have the power to almost ruin this message board. They are totally screwed up and unreal.
Cavediver, what's your say?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 09-30-2008 8:00 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-01-2008 6:24 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 10-01-2008 12:41 PM Agobot has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 59 (484711)
10-01-2008 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Agobot
10-01-2008 4:44 AM


Agobot writes:
I'm a big fan of Einstein and think he's right - the QM is totally screwed up. Now someone better prove this whole QM nonsense is wrong and give us back the confidence in reality.
My theory is that we're talking to a wall and that mentioning once again that QM no more undermines the reality of our macro world than atoms will continue to have no effect. For you responses are only useful because they have the little reply button for you to click.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 4:44 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 6:56 AM Percy has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 6 of 59 (484715)
10-01-2008 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
10-01-2008 6:24 AM


Percy writes:
My theory is that we're talking to a wall and that mentioning once again that QM no more undermines the reality of our macro world than atoms will continue to have no effect.
WTF are you saying? The quantum world is not related to our world? How so? So Einstein is wrong? All quantum physicists are wrong? You don't understand QM but it's ok, most people don't anyway. What science currently thinks in terms of its findings might well be wrong.
Percy writes:
For you responses are only useful because they have the little reply button for you to click.
Sorry?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-01-2008 6:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-01-2008 7:40 AM Agobot has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 59 (484717)
10-01-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Agobot
10-01-2008 6:56 AM


I was commenting on your conclusion that QM undermines confidence in reality, and I predicted, correctly as it turns out, that you would again ignore any mention of the fact that QM no more has this effect than the earlier discovery of atoms.
Misinterpreting Einstein and the Copenhagen Interpretation is not evidence that the universe is a simulation. Your basic argument is, "Hey, science could be wrong, so I'm free to make stuff up."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 6:56 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 8 of 59 (484729)
10-01-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
10-01-2008 7:40 AM


Percy writes:
I was commenting on your conclusion that QM undermines confidence in reality, and I predicted, correctly as it turns out, that you would again ignore any mention of the fact that QM no more has this effect than the earlier discovery of atoms.
You shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't comprehend at all. QM has tremendous effects on our reality:
Page not found – Physics World
The fact that scientists still don't know what to make of the CI, does not mean QM does NOT play a role in our everyday lives. It just means that scientists still don't know what exactly is going on. There is good chance that their preditions could be correct - that the Moon is there(exists) only when you try to observe(measure) it(AKA simulation - it does not exist unless the human mind thinks it exists).
The fact that you compare the discovery of the atom to the discovery that particles could be in 2 or multiple places at the same time, break the speed of light, etc. just shows your ignorance of the QM and the implications of its discoveries.
Percy writes:
Misinterpreting Einstein and the Copenhagen Interpretation is not evidence that the universe is a simulation. Your basic argument is, "Hey, science could be wrong, so I'm free to make stuff up."
--Percy
Oh give me a break, you have no idea what the CI means. I misinterpreted it? You are implying to know how the wave-particle collapse should be interpreted. Why don't you let all scientists know what the "correct" interpretention is? You could win the Noble Prize because no human being currently knows why the wave-particle collapse works the way it does and what it's implications in the macro world are. Scientists have unearthed something that defies human logic, they even speak of devising a new level 1 way of human thinking to comprehend the way things are happening in the quantum world.
I may have misinterpreted the wave-particle collapse, there are other possible scenarios- many world interpretation - where there are infinite numbers of you's in every world in a different state, etc. I just don't believe it, it might be correct, I acknowledge that i don't know. But saying "you misinterpreted" the CI when the CI say the Moon is there only when we look at it, just shows how "well" you understand QM.
Percy writes:
"Hey, science could be wrong, so I'm free to make stuff up."
You are way out of your depth here. You better write about god and the bible in the Faith & Belief section.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-01-2008 7:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2008 9:56 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 10-01-2008 9:58 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 10-01-2008 1:53 PM Agobot has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 9 of 59 (484733)
10-01-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Agobot
10-01-2008 9:41 AM


More Topic less disrespect!
Almost all of your post is simply an attack on Percy's knowledge. Don't do it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 9:41 AM Agobot has not replied

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


Message 10 of 59 (484734)
10-01-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Agobot
10-01-2008 9:41 AM


Hello again Agobot.
I guess what Percy and Rahvin are trying to say here is that it doesn't matter what QM implies, the experiences we have in our lives are still as real as it gets for us.
An apple still tastes like an apple, when you drink alcohol you get drunk, when you cut yourself you bleed, wheter QM is true or not, this still happens as before.
When I first heard about some of the things QM implies, I was not "shocked" I was amazed and wondered how all this could be, but I was never shocked. Why would I be, my life doesn't change one bit now that I know it, and neither does anyone else's. Unless they get a bit too obsessed with it and go insane.
This seems to tie in nicely with most of the other threads you posted here in the past days. It seems you are distraught that there is no "purpose" to this life, and I asked you this before, I'm asking aain now. Why would there have to be a purpose for this life? I'm quite happy being insignificant, why can't you be?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 9:41 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 10:12 AM Huntard has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 11 of 59 (484737)
10-01-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Huntard
10-01-2008 9:58 AM


Huntard writes:
When I first heard about some of the things QM implies, I was not "shocked" I was amazed and wondered how all this could be, but I was never shocked.
Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr: "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it".
But i am happy that most seem to be doing quite well with the findings and interpretensions of QM experiments. It's really good. Nothing of this could really influence our daily lives, in fact i think we don't even need to know about QM. But since we are discussing the possibility of God, we have to look at our existence first and what it really constitutes.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 10-01-2008 9:58 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 10:32 AM Agobot has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 12 of 59 (484741)
10-01-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Agobot
10-01-2008 10:12 AM


Agobot writes:
But i am happy that most seem to be doing quite well with the findings and interpretensions of QM experiments.
Are you shocked by QM(as in classical mechanics)?
Or is it QFT that is shocking you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 10:12 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 10:41 AM onifre has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 13 of 59 (484742)
10-01-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by onifre
10-01-2008 10:32 AM


onifre writes:
Are you shocked by QM(as in classical mechanics)?
Or is it QFT that is shocking you?
The idea that there is no objective reality that arises out of the CI in QM is somewhat shocking(that what we perceive as classical mechanics is just a perception). The fact that QM states that we are not made of physical particles but of energy and waves is also shocking. Is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 10:32 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by onifre, posted 10-01-2008 12:33 PM Agobot has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 14 of 59 (484750)
10-01-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Agobot
10-01-2008 10:41 AM


Abogot writes:
The fact that QM states that we are not made of physical particles but of energy and waves is also shocking. Is it not?
Well we have to be made of something at the most fundamental level, why not energy and waves? But, technically we are made of particles too, and atoms, and molecules, and cells etc, etc...The energy & waves is just the most micro part we know about the universe, and everything in it.
Also, reality is what it is. Bats use sonar to see reality. We use our eye's. Other species don't see a reality at all. Shouldn't you feel privileged, rather than shocked to experience the reality you get to see and find out how it works? Nothing about you will change no matter what you come to find out about reality, it always was and always will be nothing more than what you experience...for a short while, till it's over, so enjoy the ride.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 10:41 AM Agobot has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 15 of 59 (484752)
10-01-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Agobot
10-01-2008 4:44 AM


quote:
Agobot writes:
Evidence points heavily towards us being a part of a simulation.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
It does? What evidence?
Actually there is. That's what prompted Einstein to believe that quantum theory is wrong(and he happens to be the father of that theory). I think it will eventually be proven incomplete(or possibly wrong) and it's obvious something's missing in it, that has to account for what reality is. And since this debate has already taken place in Copenhagen(Interpretation) by physicists that were more "versed" into the nature of reality than both of us, i'll quote A.Einstein:
quote:
"The more success the quantum physics has, the sillier it looks. ... I think that a 'particle' must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. ... God does not play dice with the cosmos. (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics)"
None of that had anything to do with evidence that our reality is some sort of simulation. It was completely unrelated to anything even remotely relavent.
Further, it was an appeal to authority withotu any sort of argument. Quoting Einstein doesn't magically make you right, Agobot.
How any why do you believe Quantum Mechanics will be proven wrong? In what specific way do you think ti is "incomplete?" Why? Simply saying that "Einstein thought it must be wrong" is not an argument at all. How does this mean that our reality is a simulation? How does it even support that idea?
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Agobot, you seem to be a little...unbalanced...after your physics discussion with cavediver about the nature of reality.
Unbalanced? You could say so but a better word would be "shocked".
As Niel Bohr said "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it."
No, after reading your other replies so far here and in other threads, I think "unbalanced" was a good word choice. You aren't making cohesive arguemtns, Agobot, you're quoting various physicists without actually making an argument of your own.
Quantum physics is certainly counterintuitive to human beings, who don't directly experience reality on the quantum scale. Our reality is made up of conglomerations of molecules (and even those we typically can't see, certainly not without technological aid), which are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, which are made of still smaller quarks and gluons, and the smaller the scale the less intuitively the Unvierse appears.
That doesn't mean that our reality is an illusion, just that we don't see the whole picture. A building is no less real simply because it's made of bricks. Our reality is no less real simply because it all boils down to disturbances in the quantum field. The atoms that make you up are really there, they just aren't the final building blocks of the Universe.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Everything from matter to the very concept of distance may just be different perturbations of the quantum field, but that doesn't mean the world we observe is any less real. It's no different from discovering that your body is actually made up of atoms - the end result is still really you.
You seem to think like Einstein and he was proven wrong in the 70's. But this is science(=what we know or rather think we know), Einstein can be UN-proven wrong.
This doesn't make any sense. You haven't said in what way my quote was similar to what Einstein thought. You haven't said what specifically was proven wrong in the 70's. There's no argument here, just a series of noncohesive sentences. Take a deep breath and try again.
How is noting that objects made of atoms are still real despite their reality as structures of simpler particles similar to what Einsten thought? What did Einstein think? How was it proven wrong? Make your actual argument, Agobot.
Science is just our futile human way of trying to understand the complex nature of reality.
It can be wrong. The observational data in QM was right, but it could have been wrongly interpreted. There could be some other laws and phenemena at play that scientists are not aware of.
I wouldn't say that sceince is "futile." The scientific method has proven to be an incredible method of ensuring accuracy in understanding reality. I assume you actually mean our current scientific understanding of the Universe, and if that's the case, I agree - there certainly can be additional "laws and phenomenon at play" than what we've uncovered so far. That's a basic fact of all scientific research ever.
But then, noting that we can always be wrong, especially if new data is eventually uncovered, doesn't mean that we are wrong. So far as we can tell, Quantum Mechanics is an incredibly accurate set of theories. It may be that, like Newton's law of gravity, we may find that our current models break down at a certain scale and a more accurate model is developed, but that doesn't make our current models any less accurate for the scales and phenomenon we've observed.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
It's not so much that the Universe is illusory, it's more that we humans have a limited range of observation.
If you religiously believe in science you have to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of wave particle collapse and the theory that your computer is currently both switched off and switched on at the same time. It's so fucked up that i don't believe anything of what scientists are trying to feed me about our world. Call me nuts and everything but I think QM is totally screwed up. My mind cannot accept these interpretations and these interpretations are almost brain-washing and shocking. They are not real, I do believe what I perceive is more real than their stupid, utterly ridiculous findings. I'm just waiting for the day when it will all come crushing to the ground.
...wow. That was quite a rant. It's unfortunate that there wasn't anything more cohesive than "I don't understand it so I don't accept it, scientists are just full of bullshit." Congratulations, Agobot, you've just shown that Creationists aren't the only ones whose personal ignorance and incredulity can somehow count as authoritative on science. Perhaps you could try making sense next time? Perhaps posting an argument? A reason you think "QM is fucked up?"
After all My reality > a bullshit scientific interpretation
Careful. Counting personal experiences and observations above careful objective analysis of nature lies the way of madness. It may be "more real" to you, but that doesn't make your understanding of reality any more objectively accurate. You're human, subject to ignorance, misunderstanding, and emotion, just like the rest of us.
I'm a big fan of Einstein and think he's right - the QM is totally screwed up. Now someone better prove this whole QM nonsense is wrong and give us back the confidence in reality.
I have full confidence in reality. I still don't see how yours was shaken by the notion that physical reality is the result of perturbations in the quantum field. It doesn't make my desk any less solid, it doesn't make water any less wet. I view that information in the same way I view the revelation that matter is comprised of atoms. Even general atomic interactions and chemistry are counterintuitive to anyone who hasn't taken a chemistry course. Again, learning about chemical bonds, elements, electron shells, and the fact that matter is almost entirely empty space didn't change the objective reality of life at the human scale. It simply provided additional information as to the nature of the Universe. Quantum mechanics is the same.
These "findings" and interpretations have far reaching consequences. They have the power to almost ruin this message board. They are totally screwed up and unreal.
What specific findings? What consequences? How can they "ruin this message board?" How are they "screwed up and unreal?"
You aren't posting compelte thoughts here, Agobot. Please respond with something of substance.
Cavediver, what's your say?
10 imaginary internet dollars says cavediver's initial reaction to this thread (assuming it garners a response at all) is one of either mockery or a request that you seek help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 4:44 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2008 1:09 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 18 by Agobot, posted 10-01-2008 2:13 PM Rahvin 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