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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 77 (356354)
10-13-2006 5:02 PM


I'm sure most people have seen this figure, and it cropped up in another Iraq related thread. I thought it would be an interesting thread to talk about the study methodology and its accuracy.
The report can be read here - registration is required but it is free.
The method used is known as 'cluster sampling', I'll quote from the paper:
The Lancet writes:
Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.
They found that the pre-invasion mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000 people per year. Post invasion the mortality rate was 13.3 per 1,000 per year. This translates to 655,000 more deaths than normal since the invasion. About 600,000 of those were violent deaths. The most common cause of death being gunfire. Some of the other 55,000 deaths could be indirectly related to war - things such as medical supply problems, fresh water supply issues and so on.
Many people have criticized this figure, though those that agree that its findings might be accurate say that the method has been used successfully in other areas. Since there isn't a physical body count, we can only be so confident of the numbers, but the Lancet is confident that the confidence level is high. After all:
The Lancet writes:
. Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with population-based estimates. Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence
There is an interesting test of the cluster sampling method (in general) here which finds that
quote:
: Immediately following a cluster survey to assess mortality retrospectively in a town in North Darfur, Sudan in 2005, we conducted a systematic survey on the same population and again measured mortality retrospectively. This was only possible because the geographical layout of the town, and the availability of a good previous estimate of the population size and distribution, were conducive to the systematic survey design.
RESULTS: Both the cluster and the systematic survey methods gave similar results below the emergency threshold for crude mortality
I have found no reasonable criticism of the report, only incredulity at the high number and how it compares with other figures.
Comments?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 10-13-2006 5:44 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:02 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-17-2006 8:53 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 10-18-2006 8:56 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 59 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2007 9:27 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 62 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2007 2:09 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 2 of 77 (356357)
10-13-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
10-13-2006 5:02 PM


The one problem I see, is that collection of data during the current unsettled conditions is probably a little tricky.
My own personal estimate had been that there were over 200,000 Iraqi deaths. While the 600,000 figure is higher than expected, it does at least seem plausible.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 10-13-2006 5:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-13-2006 5:58 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 77 (356358)
10-13-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
10-13-2006 5:44 PM


It's never easy
The one problem I see, is that collection of data during the current unsettled conditions is probably a little tricky.
The report discusses this very issue. It seems to state that if anything, it would cause final figures to be an underestimate, not an overestimate.
There were 3 clusters that were discounted due to accounting problems, and some problems with violence in certain areas had to be dealt with. It's certainly not a walk in the park, but the Lancet was confident that it was handled the situation in a comparable way to other unsettled conditions (eg Darfur).
As always, it probably had an effect - but passive methods are even more susceptable to errors than this (so they say anywho!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 10-13-2006 5:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 77 (357142)
10-17-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
10-13-2006 5:02 PM


Mathematical improbability
I'm sure most people have seen this figure, and it cropped up in another Iraq related thread. I thought it would be an interesting thread to talk about the study methodology and its accuracy.
The report can be read here - registration is required but it is free.
The method used is known as 'cluster sampling', I'll quote from the paper:
The Lancet writes:
could k
quote:
Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.
Just yesterday I was engaged in a debate concerning the figure of 600,000 civilian casualties since the start of the war in Iraq. It looked absolutely fallacious so I employed deductive reasoning and mathematics to clear the air and dispell some of the blatant falsehoods being posited from various websites and news clips.
Every site has vastly different figures ranging from, 3-5,000, 30-100,000, 16,000, 50-100,000, 600,000, 650,000, 13,000, and there was even one that said GWB has personally killed over a trillion people. Unequivocally, what linked them together was the popular and parroted phrase, "Studies have shown that," and "research indicates that," but they don't provide any sources. The few that do cite a source neglect to give any details on how they've ascertained those figures.
Coalition forces have been Iraq for a little over 3 years, starting on March 20, 2003. That's 1305 days, (as of Oct 16, 2006), to accumulate a staggering innocent civilian death toll of 600,000 bodies of men, women, and children. That's 2,175 bodies a day-- not including US or insurgent casualties. I'd like to know how any nation, especially a wartorn nation in such a decrepit condition as Iraq is, how they could possibly handle an influx of over 2,175 bodies a day.
What do they do with all the bodies? Burn them in heaps? Because that's the only possible way anyone could dispose of 2,175 bodies a day. Actually, worse still, you couldn't even employ a team of people to gather that many bodies and transport them on a daily basis.
Conclusion: The figure of 600,000 civilian deaths since the start of the war is pure and unadulterated propaganda.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 10-13-2006 5:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2006 1:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 5 of 77 (357144)
10-17-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
NJ computes:
Coalition forces have been Iraq for a little over 3 years, starting on March 20, 2003. That's 1305 days, (as of Oct 16, 2006), to accumulate a staggering innocent civilian death toll of 600,000 bodies of men, women, and children. That's 2,175 bodies a day-- not including US or insurgent casualties. I'd like to know how any nation, especially a wartorn nation in such a decrepit condition as Iraq is, how they could possibly handle an influx of over 2,175 bodies a day.
Don't know what passes for division in your world but here is what my calculator says.
600,000 deaths / 1,305 days = 459.77 deaths per day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:45 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 77 (357148)
10-17-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by anglagard
10-17-2006 8:19 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Don't know what passes for division in your world but here is what my calculator says.
600,000 deaths / 1,305 days = 459.77 deaths per day.
Uh.......... yyyyyyyeah. Next time I won't divide 1,305 into 600,000.
Its of no consequence to the argument though. There is no way that 460 innocent people die a day due to coalition troops killing them. There would be countless images coming from Al-Jazeera who would seek to exploit that. There is no way that a team of people could round up that many bodies a day and dispose of them.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 8:19 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Damouse, posted 10-17-2006 9:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 7 of 77 (357151)
10-17-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
10-13-2006 5:02 PM


Who'd be President?
Reading through the methodology my mind boggles at the difficulties in coming to an accurate figure.
Did the sampling happen to favour areas of large scale action? I didn't see that mentioned on cursory reading of methodology
Main streets and residential streets off main streets seem to have be the target for sampling. Could we expect these to involve higher casualities than less central areas? Were the figures simply extrapolated nationally?
The biggest problem seems to be in the attitude of those surveyed. If hearts and minds lost then then then exaggeration is to be expected. If hearts and minds won then we might expect things to be worse. If the figure is actually 600,000 then hearts and minds won is a very unlikely scenario.
It was stated that a reported death resulted in a request for inspection of the death cert but I saw no table detailing the ratio of reported deaths without/reported death with death cert. It would help the estimate (the above issues notwithstanding) were there a high level of supporting documentation.
Whatever. Imagine a mortar shell / car bomb going off in the middle of a crowd containing her. Then multiply by whatever figure you believe is true
File:Iraqi girl smiles.jpg - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 10-13-2006 5:02 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by melatonin, posted 10-17-2006 9:29 PM iano has replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6209 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 8 of 77 (357155)
10-17-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by iano
10-17-2006 8:53 PM


Re: Who'd be President?
Families could have reported deaths that did not occur, although this seems unlikely, since most reported deaths could be corroborated with a certificate. However, certificates might not be issued for young children, and in some places death certificates had stopped being issued; our 92% confirmation rate was therefore deemed to be reasonable.
Although interviewers used a robust process for identifying clusters, the potential exists for interviewers to be drawn to especially affected houses through conscious or unconscious processes. Although evidence of this bias does not exist, its potential cannot be dismissed.
Burhnam et al. (2006)
The rate found before the war (5.4 per 1000) is very close to other data for that period (around 5.5 per 1000). It suggests that the sample was representative of that period, was it representative of post-war Iraq?
ABE: I see modulous never linked this, it's a companion article to the actual lancet study...
Home | MIT Center for International Studies
Edited by melatonin, : added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iano, posted 10-17-2006 8:53 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 10-17-2006 9:50 PM melatonin has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 9 of 77 (357157)
10-17-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:45 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
quote:
Uh.......... yyyyyyyeah. Next time I won't divide 1,305 into 600,000.
Hey nem? Sorry man, but 1305/600,000 is .002175. What on earth do you do with your decimals!?

This statement is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 10:44 PM Damouse has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 77 (357160)
10-17-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by melatonin
10-17-2006 9:29 PM


Re: Who'd be President?
However, certificates might not be issued for young children, and in some places death certificates had stopped being issued; our 92% confirmation rate was therefore deemed to be reasonable.
This strikes me as ususual. To arrive at 100 warstruck households in which a death had occurred and amongst which young childrens deaths might not be recorded and in area for which no recordings at all might take place and still hit a 92% documentary record of death would be remarkable.
Surveying a cluster in non-warzone Dublin where 100 deaths had occurred and hitting a 92% documental confirmation of death would strike me as significant. No losses, no grannies who wouldn't know where to look, no persons who pocketed the documentation but who were not at home - yet someone else in the household knew where to find said documentaton?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by melatonin, posted 10-17-2006 9:29 PM melatonin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 77 (357166)
10-17-2006 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Damouse
10-17-2006 9:36 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Hey nem? Sorry man, but 1305/600,000 is .002175. What on earth do you do with your decimals!?
I know, I know.... You don't have to remind me. I've already bashed my head on to my computer desk over such a stupid error.
I was so intent on getting the number that, one, I fudged the order and divided 1,305 into 600,000, and then payed no attention to the decimal or the zero placements. Monstrously stupid.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Damouse, posted 10-17-2006 9:36 PM Damouse has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 77 (357184)
10-18-2006 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:45 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
There is no way that 460 innocent people die a day due to coalition troops killing them.
That's not the parameters of the study, though. It's not just deaths caused by coalition activity; it's all conflict-related deaths since the invasion. That includes the mounting death toll from Iraq's sectarian civil war, which is ongoing.
There is no way that a team of people could round up that many bodies a day and dispose of them.
We're firebombing large areas of Iraq daily. What makes you think there's any bodies to round up? According to the Lancet study, less than 20% of the Iraqi dead are actually recovered. The rest are likely buried in the rubble where they died, or burned to ashes.
Anyway doesn't Islam mandate cremation before the sun sets? Perhaps most people are simply dealing with the remains of their loved ones long before any monitoring agency has a chance to observe a body.
I think it's telling that immediately upon hearing of this massive death toll, Bush defenders leapt to the political defensive. Isn't there anything above politics for you people? Do you really have to cast everything in terms of hurting or helping Bush?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 1:56 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 77 (357188)
10-18-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
10-17-2006 8:02 PM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Unequivocally, what linked them together was the popular and parroted phrase, "Studies have shown that," and "research indicates that," but they don't provide any sources. The few that do cite a source neglect to give any details on how they've ascertained those figures.
That's unfortunately not the case. Right there in the OP is a link to the study in question. Why not go and read it?
Coalition forces have been Iraq for a little over 3 years, starting on March 20, 2003. That's 1305 days, (as of Oct 16, 2006), to accumulate a staggering innocent civilian death toll of 600,000 bodies of men, women, and children. That's 2,175 bodies a day-- not including US or insurgent casualties. I'd like to know how any nation, especially a wartorn nation in such a decrepit condition as Iraq is, how they could possibly handle an influx of over 2,175 bodies a day.
What part of the decrepit and war torn adjectives gives you the impression that the country is actually able to handle this influx? The Soviet Union had 11,500,000 civillian deaths in WWII which is over ten times the death rate in Iraq.

War/Country Civillian Deaths Per Day (rough est)
Vietnam 700
WWII Soviet Union 5200
Darfur 270
Enduring Freedom/Iraq (Lancet) 460
Enduring Freedom/Iraq (Bush's est) 27
WWII/China 3200
WWI/Russia 1100
WWI/Germany 422
Second Congo War 1944
It sounds like incredulity not a mathematical argument as your title seems to suggest.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : added comparison table
Edited by Modulous, : added two different version of Iraq death estimates for comparison
Edited by Modulous, : More figures!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2006 8:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tusko, posted 12-07-2007 5:06 AM Modulous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 77 (357189)
10-18-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
10-18-2006 12:32 AM


Re: Mathematical improbability
That's not the parameters of the study, though. It's not just deaths caused by coalition activity; it's all conflict-related deaths since the invasion. That includes the mounting death toll from Iraq's sectarian civil war, which is ongoing.
No, the purpose of the inquiry is to established the number of "civilian casualties" at the hands of US troops. That is the premise.
We're firebombing large areas of Iraq daily.
Firebombing large areas daily? That's absurd. The US does not casually carpet bomb cities to hit a few insurgents. It just doesn't happen that way because no one wants that kind of scandal. The US in the beginning of war hit targeted areas that had been surveilled long in advance of any attack using precision-guided munitions. I have no doubt that some innocent people became collateral damage for numerous reasons. I'm not denying that. But the US took precautions to avoid that as much as possible by dropping leaflets in advance warning the people that missle strikes would be underway.
After major operations ended, the use of planes laden with missles and bombs is considered rare, used on high value targets, such as was seen in the attack on Zarqawi. Now or days, its a tedious patrolling of streets and gathering intelligence for raids.
What makes you think there's any bodies to round up? According to the Lancet study, less than 20% of the Iraqi dead are actually recovered. The rest are likely buried in the rubble where they died, or burned to ashes.
If bodies aren't recovered then how can anyone reasonably account for their deaths? If there is nothing left of the bodies because they were incinerated, then how can the Lancet or anyone else account for even 20% of those whom have died at the hands of an irresponsible level of force? Furthermore, who comprises Lancet that they are privvy to all this information? Where are they compiling their data from? After reviewing the methodology of the "cluster method," while ingenious in its approach, it still would be fraught with innacuracies and is still reliant on a nation to have accurately annotated the mortality rate before and after the invasion.
And if people are so certain that these individuals have died, where are all of the death certificates? As well, the study claims to include non-violent deaths, such as traffic accidents in their reports.
Anyway doesn't Islam mandate cremation before the sun sets? Perhaps most people are simply dealing with the remains of their loved ones long before any monitoring agency has a chance to observe a body.
I don't know what Shari'a has to say about that, but any journalist would be all over that. I mean, if this many innocent people are dying everyday in Iraq, why is no one reporting it? They report everytime a soldier stubs his toe, so who could resist reporting all these deaths everyday?
I later saw a link that I've seen before, but have forgotten about since someone else has graciously posted it. Though Iraqbodycount.net would certainly be expected to be with error, for the simple fact that it claims to rely on its information coming from journalists, I am still impressed with its dedication to compile those figures. There is a very large disparity between the two studies, as much as an estimated 556,000 body count difference. That's enormous. And with the journalistic popularity of Iraq, I hardly see how 556,000 can go underreported, and still have a group claiming these people as legitimate deaths to be considered in empirical studies.
I think it's telling that immediately upon hearing of this massive death toll, Bush defenders leapt to the political defensive. Isn't there anything above politics for you people? Do you really have to cast everything in terms of hurting or helping Bush?
It's a lie! We've already uncovered the AP and Reuters lying like dogs to invent a juicy story. And they are using this lie to further their political agenda. Why not the outrage on that?
Here's the plain fact on the matter: This is a very unpopular war, and the constant spin of the media is one of inflation to cause the demoralization of the effort in hopes that it will be so unpopular, so as to be abandone the effort altogether. That agenda is so obvious if you would just read between the lines.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add and fix typos

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2006 2:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 10-18-2006 2:40 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2006 5:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 77 (357192)
10-18-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2006 1:56 AM


The Lancet Report - it's quite a quick read
No, the purpose of the inquiry is to established the number of "civilian casualties" at the hands of US troops. That is the premise.
You need to read either the OP or the paper itself. They found the death rates before the war, and the death rates afterwards. The causes of death for the final figure were not considered.
quote:
. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3-7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9-16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion.
quote:
Aside from violence, insufficient water supplies, non-functional sewerage, and restricted electricity supply also create health hazards.9,10 A deteriorating health service with insecure access, and the flight of health professionals adds further risks. People displaced by the on-going sectarian violence add to the number of vulnerable individuals. In many conflicts, these indirect causes have accounted for most civilian deaths
quote:
The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.
If bodies aren't recovered then how can account for their deaths? If there is nothing left of the bodies because they were incinerated, then how can Lancet even that 20% died at the hands of an irresponsible action? Furthermore, who comprises Lancet that they are privvy to all this information? Where are they compiling their data from?
Read it and you will gain this information. They calculated mortality rates before and after and then calculated how many extra deaths in total there had been since the war began. The entire point is that in countries of conflict, official 'body counts' have almost invariably been over 5 times too low (according to the Lancet, the OP discusses this and provides an appropriate quote).
I mean, if this many innocent people are dying everyday in Iraq, why is no reporting it? They report everytime a soldier stubs his toe, so who could resist reporting all these deaths everyday?
The point being, that journalists and soldiers cannot know what is happening to every single civillian since there are millions of them. Soldiers on the other hand, report more of their injuries which are then recorded.
And they are using this lie to further their political agenda.
The OP asked for reasons as to what is fallacious about the methodology used and/or the conclusions reached. Declaration of them being a lie because you don't believe them doesn't count. I don't believe them, but I refuse to be swayed by my beliefs in the matter and will only accept reason.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2006 1:56 AM Hyroglyphx 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