Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Randman's call for nonSecular education...
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 226 (259275)
11-13-2005 4:02 AM


In another thread I said the following:
Many of the voucher system proponents are simply using a very real issue, quality of education, to divert public money heading toward public education into private schooling, and more important than that: religious institutions.
The main goal for these people is not better education
In short, people who call for vouchers are desiring public money to go into religion.
To which Randman replied:
And this is so? why? because you say so? Can you prove that?
Basically, that's just a smear put out by liberals who are using public schools indirectly through the NEA to funnel campaign money to the democratic party.
And you are wrong about public education. Because of fear of litigation, schools don't teach the Bible as a mandated course, nor theology, and without a fairly thorough knowledge of both of those things, one receives basically an inferiour education. The simple fact unless one understands the theological movements that shaped Western history, and understands them from the believer's perpsective so that the motive of these movements is clear, one doesn't understand basic history.
Likewise, without knowing the Bible, you really are missing out in terms of literature. You just lack a basic education
We've got a few issues coming out of that response:
1) R's response totally vindicates my position. Unless perhaps I need to revise it to say that while they are concerned about quality of education, they only believe it will come from religion? In practice that is the same thing as I was arguing.
2) I loathe the democrats almost as much as I loathe the reps, and I am rather critical of the NEA, so the charge that I am seeking to use secular education through the NEA to divert money to Democrats is ludicrous on its face. I might also ask how that diversion would occur. Using vouchers to give money to religious schools is an obvious mechanism for diverting money. How is secular education doing this?
3) Why is a basic education incomplete without a Biblical education? And along with this you say "from a believer's perspective", what kind of believer? A Catholic? Presbyterian? Unitarian? Southern Baptist? Deist? Each will make a very different interpretation of that work and the history which came from it.
4) If the Bible is necessary for a proper basic education, how come many nations and cultures did brilliantly without it? What effect does it have on study of math and language without which you cannot properly communicate and add/subtract?
5) The Bible is terrible as literature. I actually studied it as literature, that is had a course which was the study of the Bible as literature. And before you start in on liberal bias, it was at a religious affiliated university, taught by a protestant minister. The writing is inconsistent in quality (which makes sense since it has different authors and editors), as well as containing passages which do not even count as prose. It can be considered a collection of different kinds of things, including some stories, but not a singular work of literature. And I do not see how anyone not having read it would lessen their literacy. Indeed that's a bit inconsistent isn't it? One has to be able to read and comprehend in order to read the Bible, right? One cannot read the Bible in order to become literate.
6) There is no bar for the instruction of kids in the Bible, just because they get a secular education at school. What this does is free parents of the duty of having to teach the other basics so that all they need to do is teach morals and beliefs in the home. Is this such an odious task for people that believe in religion?
I guess I'll leave it at that for now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 8:15 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2005 8:28 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 7 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 11:04 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 42 by jar, posted 11-14-2005 11:08 PM Silent H has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 2 of 226 (259437)
11-13-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-13-2005 4:02 AM


the bible as literature
randman writes:
without knowing the Bible, you really are missing out in terms of literature. You just lack a basic education
i actually agree. sort of:
5) The Bible is terrible as literature. I actually studied it as literature, that is had a course which was the study of the Bible as literature. And before you start in on liberal bias, it was at a religious affiliated university, taught by a protestant minister. The writing is inconsistent in quality (which makes sense since it has different authors and editors), as well as containing passages which do not even count as prose. It can be considered a collection of different kinds of things, including some stories, but not a singular work of literature. And I do not see how anyone not having read it would lessen their literacy. Indeed that's a bit inconsistent isn't it? One has to be able to read and comprehend in order to read the Bible, right? One cannot read the Bible in order to become literate.
what i mean is that the bible is legitimate ancient literature. i think it should be taught -- alongside gilgamesh, beowulf, the vedas, etc. how is it "bad" literature? it's pretty consistent with such books and sets of books. so what if it's inconsistent?
and so what if it's poetry? the iliad and the odyssey are poetry. so is beowulf. why is that a bad thing? it's simply how a lot of ancient literature was written.
not reading it wouldn't lessen literacy, no. but it is part of a basic education in literature, at least at the college level. removing it would be just as bad pretending greek mythology didn't exist. it really is part of cultural history, and should be learned about in that regard.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 4:02 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2005 8:36 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 6 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 10:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 226 (259441)
11-13-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-13-2005 4:02 AM


randman writes:
The simple fact unless one understands the theological movements that shaped Western history, and understands them from the believer's perpsective so that the motive of these movements is clear, one doesn't understand basic history.
Of course the theological movements themselves were shaped by historical events and struggle with other theological movements...in fact, "theological" movements were usually political movements that used religion as a justification.
It would, indeed, be a worthwhile endeavor to show how Western religious belief and thought has been the result of a continuous unfolding of political and social history. I suspect that it might be a little deep for grade school kids, although I would love to see the look on the faces of evangelical parents as their own theology is exposed as a method of indoctrinating a particular political agenda.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 4:02 AM Silent H has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 226 (259442)
11-13-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by arachnophilia
11-13-2005 8:15 PM


Re: the bible as literature
and so what if it's poetry? the iliad and the odyssey are poetry. so is beowulf. why is that a bad thing? it's simply how a lot of ancient literature was written.
the poetic rhyme and rhythm were used to aid the memory before there was the written word. they also aid the mesmerising effect of their rendition.
this is just evidence that {some of} the works origins predate the written versions.
the clash between poetic sections and non-poetic show distinctive differences in style that also mark their being of different time origins.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 8:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 8:49 PM RAZD has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 226 (259444)
11-13-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
11-13-2005 8:36 PM


Re: the bible as literature
this is just evidence that {some of} the works origins predate the written versions.
but not all. it's usually evidence it was not originated as written word, and sometimes that the society was not literated. but think about shakespeare.
there's also some evidence that the greeks who "wrote" the odyssey that homer recorded were post-literate. actually, my greek/philosphy prof a few years ago has this theory about poetry cycles, post-literate societies, and rap music...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2005 8:36 PM RAZD has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 226 (259472)
11-13-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by arachnophilia
11-13-2005 8:15 PM


Re: the bible as literature
Thanks for illustrating my point here, maybe better than I could. The following may be preaching to the choir, but oh well.....
No one objects to Greek mythology, even though it is religion, and they don't because no one beleives it.
The Bible is even more relevant in terms of both literature and history than the Greek pantheon, but the secularists are so afraid that someone might believe the Bible, they have basically banned it from education, although some courses have been insituted in recent years.
Imo, considering the Bible is 66 books and theology quite extensive, I think it deserves a class dedicated over a number of years from junior high into high school, for people to be educated, and after that, perhaps later in high school, other culture's religious books and theology should also be taught so people receive a basic education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 8:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 12:55 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 226 (259474)
11-13-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-13-2005 4:02 AM


didn't read the whole post yet
But in response to an early comment, there is a difference between teaching about religion and teaching people to believe. If you don't do the first, you are not properly educating people, but you should not require anyone to believe.
If you don't know the books of the Bible, the ideas and stories within, and it would take more than one or two classes to familiarize yourself with it, and you don't understand the various Christian theologies, you basically don't know that much about Western history, and are ignorant in some relevant areas as far as literature. So over a period of several years, students should be taught a class on these things.
After that, they should be taught about the religion and the religious books of other cultures in the world, and some of that culture here as well.
Unless you understand the religion of a people or a culture, or as in America, part of the culture, then you don't really understand the culture.
I also think with the rise of less religion in some cultures, certain ideologies should be included too. You've got to educate students in the basic beliefs and paradigms governing the mentality of various cultures/soceities, nations, and groups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 4:02 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ohnhai, posted 11-14-2005 6:46 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 226 (259498)
11-14-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
11-13-2005 10:55 PM


Re: the bible as literature
No one objects to Greek mythology, even though it is religion, and they don't because no one beleives it.
the don't object becuase no one wants to teach it as fact in a science classroom.
The Bible is even more relevant in terms of both literature and history than the Greek pantheon
i agree. the western world has been shaped by christianity for the last 1700 years or so, since it was adopted by constantine for the holy roman empire. understanding of the source of this influence is integral to the study of western history.
but the secularists are so afraid that someone might believe the Bible, they have basically banned it from education, although some courses have been insituted in recent years.
that's just not true. i've taken a whole college class on just one part of the bible, the old testament. next semester, there's even a class on the book of amos alone. and amos is not a very big book. class in the bible -- as literature -- are pretty common at the college level. we even covered parts of genesis in my intellectual traditions (philosophy) class.
i think i've heard a few cases of the bible going on the english reading lists in high school, too.
Imo, considering the Bible is 66 books and theology quite extensive, I think it deserves a class dedicated over a number of years from junior high into high school, for people to be educated, and after that, perhaps later in high school, other culture's religious books and theology should also be taught so people receive a basic education.
i think it should be taught on equal ground with other, similar books. although high school covers a lot of ground, and doesn't really go in depth. a whole class dedicated to the bible might not appropriate -- but it's fine for college.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 10:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:02 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 226 (259501)
11-14-2005 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
11-14-2005 12:55 AM


Re: the bible as literature
Well, I was referring to high school, junior high and middle school really. I think if you are going to teach history and American history, you need to also teach the Bible and theology, preferably as both a separate course to get people up to speed and within history classes, the role and ideas of religion need to be addressed. It is deplorable, for example, that a high school graduate not understand the Reformation and the centuries following which shaped Europe and America.
Same with literature, although you don't really need a separate course for that. In college, the Bible as literature can be interesting, but I think just being familiar with the Bible is enough for high school literature classes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 12:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 1:11 AM randman has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 226 (259504)
11-14-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
11-14-2005 1:02 AM


Re: the bible as literature
you walk kind of a fine line here between being right, and very seriously wrong.
high school is really not the place for bible study, however:
It is deplorable, for example, that a high school graduate not understand the Reformation and the centuries following which shaped Europe and America.
high schoolers should understand what the protestant reformation was about, and what caused it. they should also understand the calvinist impact in england, the anglican split, the great schism, etc.
however, high schoolers don't really leave high school with a whole lot of knowledge. you're not gonna be able to actually have a comparitive religions class, let alone the in-depth study of one religion or text. it might be covered somewhat breifly in literature class, though.
but I think just being familiar with the Bible is enough for high school literature classes.
but how familiar? don't forget, the bible is a BIG book. i wouldn't even go as far as to say that you or i was familiar with the bible, as a whole. i know of few people who are.
when people talk about "familiarity with the bible" they usually mean a few key parts, and how you're "supposed" to read them. the basic underlying concepts key to a particular group of beliefs. as i continue to study, i find these broad-strokes simply inadequate in truly understand what the bible IS, even on a surface level.
and aside from that, how many ancient epics would a student have time to read? we were scrambling to read the bible in college in one semester; i fell behind very fast. should we lump the other books onto that too? the iliad and the odyssey? beowulf and gilgamesh? the rig vedas and upanishads? some of these are pretty hefty books.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:02 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 226 (259512)
11-14-2005 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
11-14-2005 1:11 AM


Re: the bible as literature
That's why I think the subject should begin in junior high, maybe middle school. It is a lot to study and learn, but they already teach a lot of fluff, make kids waste time on all sorts of projects, etc,...
I guess I think an in-depth history education is essential, more so even than science. Science is great for scientists,and it's important to introduce people to science at a young age so they can decide if they want to pursue it more seriously in college and professionally, but the average person out there doesn't really need a lot or use a lot of science they learn in high school, but we are called as citizens every day to understand and make decisions where understanding our own roots and what other people beleive and think is very, very important.
So I would reverse some things a bit, and mandate more in-depth understanding of history and religion for grades 5-12, and if necessary, cut back on requirements in other areas including science and language if necessary and definitely home ec and some other stuff.
Then again, I think art is also more necessary for educating the mind than schools seem to think.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 01:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 1:11 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 1:47 AM randman has replied
 Message 29 by deerbreh, posted 11-14-2005 3:34 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 226 (259515)
11-14-2005 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-14-2005 1:38 AM


Re: the bible as literature
That's why I think the subject should begin in junior high, maybe middle school. It is a lot to study and learn, but they already teach a lot of fluff, make kids waste time on all sorts of projects, etc,...
alot of those have other purposes. like teaching kids how to handle alotted time. i must admit, i NEVER learned that lesson.
So I would reverse some things a bit, and mandate more in-depth understanding of history and religion for grades 5-12, and if necessary, cut back on requirements in other areas including science and language if necessary and definitely home ec and some other stuff.
honestly, i don't think studying the bible is THAT important for general education. important, yes. but no more important than other ancient literature, and more important than other subjects. i think it should be PART of the cirriculum, in part, but the cirriculum. i do think it's dangerous to devote so much time to one particular set of beliefs.
Then again, I think art is also more necessary for educating the mind than schools seem to think.
no argument there. music, too.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:38 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:54 AM arachnophilia has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 226 (259517)
11-14-2005 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
11-14-2005 1:47 AM


Re: the bible as literature
Yep, music too.
I guess I would say a 4-5 year period where one class is devoted to theology, the Bible, and the last year to other religions and their beliefs as well as secular philosophies, would be adequate to at least make sure there is a basic understanding there.
I think history books should put more stress on the role of religion in history.
In terms of literature, you could be right that other ancient books are as important, but they are not critical to understanding history and culture, as the Bible and theology are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 1:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2005 4:23 AM randman has not replied
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 2:34 PM randman has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 14 of 226 (259530)
11-14-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-14-2005 1:54 AM


Re: the bible as literature
On what basis is the bible more important than the Vedas? or the Koran? Buddhism has had as much of an effect on history in Asia (if not more) than the Bible on western cultures. You dismissed Greek mythology but it was hardly irrelevant considering early Greek contributions to history. How about ancient Egypt and their belief system? all critical. To not be ignorant of the effects of religion on world history, one would have to study all of this, not just the bible. This is hardly a high school or middle school course. Just learning bible history would still produce culturally and historically ignorant students in any case.
And one already sees the consequences of the decline of teaching science (which you deem dispensable) in school. American students are at the bottom in science literacy in the developed world. The US has to import its research talent because of a lack of qualified home grown talent. This website demonstrates daily the perils of poor science education and a complete lack of understandings of methodological naturalism. A population dependent on scientific advancement with no understanding of the pills they pop...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:54 AM randman has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 226 (259536)
11-14-2005 5:58 AM


arach and randman are errant...
Alot has been said by both arach and randman while I was out, so I will write this post in response to points raised by both.
I am not against teaching history, and I am not against teaching how religion fit into history. I am not against teaching literature, and I am not against teaching how religious literature fits into literature.
But something else is going on here entirely, especially when the original position taken was that without knowledge of the Bible from the aspect of a believer (which has still remained conveniently undefined) then one has a deficit in knowledge, both in history and literature.
While one can certainly argue that such instruction might add to a liberal education (indeed that's how I took it myself) it's absence does not detract from education one iota.
There is absolutely no reason one needs to understand what is in the Bible, particularly the sections that are LITERATURE, in order to understand history. While those in the past were Xian, they were of various denominations. Jefferson himself cut up the Bible to create his own, by removing what he viewed as crap.
Actually that starts the ball rolling right there... what version? That is on top of what denomination's interpretation of which version? And should people then also read the books which were excluded from the Bible?
In order to understand history all one needs to know is that people did things, not exactly what they were reading. That doesn't hurt, but it doesn't hurt not to know it either. Indeed, it is my guess Xians will not be allowing children to read religious literature of those groups predating and perhaps directly opposed to Xians.
There was a suggestion that such a thing could be allowed AFTER full years of indoctrination in the Bible, but why would that be if the question is teaching history?
But I digress. In the end there is only so much time that a public school can spend on any subject. There is absolutely no importance about the Bible, such that schools have to spend more than a minute (that is mention that it was there and believed by such and such a group) on its part in and as history.
Other nations and cultures produce fantastically functional kids (the US is getting its ass kicked academically already) without such education. That suggests there is no connection between teaching the Bible and better functioning students and civilians.
On the subject of literature. Certainly some passages COULD be taught as literature. The problem is the entire book IS NOT LITERATURE. It is bizarre to me that people are seriously treating this conception as plausible. It contains sections that are prose, sections that are poetry, sections that are historical lists, and sections that are sets of laws. Hell some parts are simply letters from some body to some body else!
The Bible is a COLLECTION of different things for use by a specific group of people.
Given that no passages were originally written in English, I am uncertain how it is to be a part of teaching english. I mean absolutely none of my mandatory english classes had me reading "literature" except some specific sets to show ways of writing, like iambic pentameter. The greeks were brought up by rand... I never read greeks at all until I was in college and decided to read them on my own. Who read greek literature as part of learning English?
The only time I ever read "literature" was part of elective courses. They were not fundamentals for public education, but electives. Even then, I did not have greek or latin classics (though some may have). I agree that this might be a format for teaching the sections of the bible as lit just as any other kind. Why not?
That is a far cry however from mandatory teaching of a single interpretation (theology) of the Bible in order to provide basic fundamental education, and without it some one is lacking.
Somewhere in here randman suggested that science is nice for scientists, but not much worth for regular people. Science is what drives everything we do in the real world. Yes I agree that history is important, but one must understand how one gains knowledge, and what we have accumulated as knowledge, in order to make good decisions.
Learning a history without understanding how good choices were made, how knowledge was gained, is kind of empty isn't it?
And in suggesting such a thing, isn't the true bias seen? Science isn't a part of history? How can we truly understand the building of civilizations, which has been as much about technology and knowledge as literature, without the history of science and what science says? Particularly US history is steeped in science.
The founding fathers were men of the enlightenment, and particularly champions of science and scientific method. The industrial revolution was based in science. All of our successes within the 20th century were based in science.
The Bible, in contrast, played a much lesser role in recent history, or how civilization has grown in ability and knowledge. Really, which is more important when discussing what led the US to its role as superpower... the Bible or scientific knowledge?
Right now other nations are kicking our ass in science and math. History is great, but if our educational system gets set up to look only at the past, we are not going to have much of a future.
I might also repoint out something I tried to raise earlier. THE BIBLE CAN BE READ IN CHURCH. That is if one cannot bring onesself to read it on ones own. IF it is so important, you can teach your kids about the Bible for many more than 4-5 years. Why on earth would theological aspects need to be brought into a time period that the public needs to spend on getting basic knowledge and skills to their kids?
But let me end with a WMD on this teaching the Bible in public school stuff. If we have problems with children seeing or reading about sex, how on earth could it ever be appropriate to teach the Bible mandatorily to anyone under 18?
It is filled with all sorts of lewd activity, and some patently graphic language regarding sex including underage sex? We are being told that children should not have health education courses which instruct children about sexual organs or how to maintain sexual health. Kids are able to get passes out of such classes by fundie parents. But we are supposed to have all children read and discuss passages stating that girls who do not have their hymens break on their wedding night are able to be stoned? Indeed we HAVE to teach them what homosexuality, incest, fornication, and masturbation is? I thought that the very mention of such things to kids was harmful as it raises an interest they may not have.
The hypocrisy seems to know no bounds here.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 11-14-2005 2:57 PM Silent H 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