Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
edge
Member (Idle past 1824 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 130 (25741)
12-06-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 3:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am reading it, and I did read it, but I'm trying to see if you guys really believe that for 1000 foot beds with only three facies. This is clearly not stated in a stratigraphical dating context.
I think you are confused about laminations, beds, formations and time. Perhaps if you took some geology courses, you wouldn't sound so silly.
quote:
So will anyone go on the record and agree specifically that some of the top of the Mauv limestone was laid at the same time as some of the bottom of the Tapeat sandstone? Do you realise that these strata would normally be dated about 70 million years apart? (I know you know that actually).
Here you don't seem to understand that a formation is not a time-stratigraphic unit. A formation is really just a convenient package of rocks that is useful in geological mapping. We have understood that formations can transgress time since Geology 101.
quote:
PS - I had always thought that when you guys talked of a prograding seqeunce it was for tens of feet of sediment not a 1000 foot formaiton.
Why wouldn't it be?
quote:
Please stop assuming I don't understand this stuff. I do.
Then show us evidence that you undstand 'this stuff'.
quote:
And I may or may not be finding some inconsisteny. We'll see.
This is just another case of 'a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 3:41 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1824 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 130 (25745)
12-06-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 1:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What Julien's and Rubin's data givesis particle size/velocity sorting statistics. they didn't get limestone, correct. One still has to have the raw products (mixed together is fine) before sorting. So what was the source of the limestone? Obviously weathered shells etc but creationists also propose the precipitation of calicum from inorganic sources as well.
Wow, I don't know where to begin!
quote:
Nevertheless the point is that the empirical data, carefully collected for particle size, velocities etc suggests that hydrological sorting is a perfect and natural explanation of such facies, as big as they are. The lower layers at the end of the flow would have been layed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow even though the layers track over the distance.
This makes no sense at all. The experiments that I am aware of simply show that sands can be laminated during high flow regimes. It says nothing about the deposition of an entire environment on the scale of a sedimentary basin. By the way, you still have to prove to me that a sand grain could be deposited before the one underneath it, or that one lamination is younger than the lamination beneath it. You are confusing relative elevation with timing here. You need to get outside the box.
quote:
My comment on the principle of superpositon is that because of the prograding issue we can't assume that all of a lower layer was laid before all of the upper layer. If we apply this to the Tonto then assumptions of 70 million year differences could be completely incorrect.
Once again, your statements belie you lack of training and basic understanding. You are confusing vertical position with time equivalence. This is not what superposition is all about. But then, you would know this if you had some background in the science.
By the way, TB, do you really think that geologists have not recognized this feature of progradation until creationists came along to tell us about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 1:57 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 130 (25772)
12-06-2002 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 2:08 AM


As I re-read some of your posts, TB, I find some more clues indicating where you are confused about some essential concepts in sedimentology.
Line-by-line, let's review:
TB writes:
although the strata within the Tonto facies are sperated by bedding planes (essentially by definition)
We have several problems here:
1. The Tonto group is not a "facies", it is a large accumulation of many, many facies.
2. The 3 formations within the Tonto Group are NOT seperated by bedding planes, as should be clear by now from my explanations in previous posts.
3. Your assumption that this is "essentially by definition" reveals a lack of understanding of what constitutes a formation, stratum, facies, and/or bedding plane.
TB writes:
So the 70 million years traversed by the Tonto is not really true?
I have seen closer to 45-50 million years. Saying that the Tonto Group represents the passage of "70 million years" is an oversimplification. At any one location, the 3 formations may span something like that time interval (I haven't checked the actual data in any specific loacations), but the 70 Mya it took in western Arizona occurred earlier than the 70 Mya of depostion in southeastern Utah.
TB writes:
Are you saying that some of the Mauv limestone was laid before some of the Tapeat sandstone?
Exactly. The Muav in the west is older than the Tapeats in the east. This is evident both by the law of superposition (the bedding planes are inclined), and by index fossil assemblages.
TB writes:
...I can almost gaurentee you that your fellow geologists would put a near 70 million gap between those formations. You are clearly distancing yourself from the principle of superposition in this case and I applaude that.
Nope. The Law of Superposition remains unbroken. My fellow geologists do not assign any "gaps" to the Tonto, I believe it is considered a continuous record of tens of millions of years of deposition in any given locality. At DIFFERENT localities, the time intervals may not be contemperaneous, however.
TB writes:
Do yuo get anything like 300 foot facies of stuff forming on top of 300 foot beds on top of 300 foot beds today?
Just to be clear, time-transgressive sequences are being formed today. A modern prograding delta deposits at least 4 main types of sediment:
1. Freshwater meandering delta channels, oxbows, swamps, etc.
2. Nearshore sands, in the form of beach, tidal and shallow water sand waves
3. Slightly deeper water silts
4. Deep water shales (clay-sized particles)
All of these are deposited simultaneously today. The top surface of the delta, beach, and offshore ocean bottom represent the top of a potential bedding plane that might be preserved in the sedimentary record. This bedding plane extends unbroken from the land out to deep sea. The sediments grade imperceptably in many cases along this bedding plane from sand to silt to shale.
If you look under ground, you find that today's beach sands are being deposited on top off finer grained shallow-water sediments, and the shallow water sediments overly deeper water shales, and so on. In the past, the delta was farther inland, so going down into the ground is like going back in time (superposition again), and into a sedimentary environment formed in deeper and deeper water.
This simple picture can be complicated by things like subsidence, sea-level change, sediment starvation, etc. The Mississippi River delta right now is subsiding rapidly, for example. That means river floodplain sediments are being reworked into, and overridden by, beach sands as the shoreline retreats. Most of the sediment load of the river that normally would replenish the delta is bypassing the floodplain as a result of Man's intervention.
TB writes:
If your agreeing with us on the hydrological sorting mechanism that is great but I don't see that ackowledged by the stratigraphic dating guys.
What you "don't see" is a reflection of how limited your knowledge of mainstream geology is. Time-progressive formations are not a new or surprising phenomena to geologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:08 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 5:29 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1824 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 130 (25774)
12-06-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by wehappyfew
12-06-2002 4:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wehappyfew:
As I re-read some of your posts, TB, I find some more clues indicating where you are confused about some essential concepts in sedimentology.
...
What you "don't see" is a reflection of how limited your knowledge of mainstream geology is. Time-progressive formations are not a new or surprising phenomena to geologists.
In our continuing effort to educate Tranquility Base, I submit the website below as a primer on some aspects of sedimentology. As you will see, this is not a trivial subject to be mastered by reading a few advanced papers, and some background is helpful. I would like TB to pay particular attention to Walther's Law.
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/facies.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 4:46 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 130 (25781)
12-06-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by wehappyfew
12-06-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
If you go to practically any passive margin today, you will find modern river delta deposits on top of shallow water silts on top of deep water shales. This is called a prograding delta. It is not the same thing as the Tonto trangressive sequence because the shallow water deposits are on top.
Just an added note - The prograding delta is for all practical effect the same as a regressing sea.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 10:56 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 130 (25790)
12-06-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by wehappyfew
12-06-2002 10:56 AM


weyhappy
You show me where there are 1000 foot deep transgressive sequences with only three facies occurring anywhere today. Sorting that would occur on the scale required for the Tonto group is the Flood.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 10:56 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 130 (25791)
12-06-2002 10:38 PM


To all of my teachers here
I enjoy learning from you but what sort of teacher pretends that his student doesn't understand something he does?
In the very first post of this thread I outlined what transgressive, prograding seqeunces are all about (I summarized it in plain English for the typical reader here):
quote:
"in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side."
"It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory"
"under current one gets sorting by particle type and size and the layers are generated both vertically and horizontally at the same time."
The lower layers at the end of the flow direction are formed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow area but the layers are trackable from start to end.
That was my first post!
Most of you are quite rude.
I am perfectly aware that regressive seqeunces have been understood for a long time, at least as long as J. Walther of Walther's law (about 100 years ago) if not longer.
But I have never, ever read that applied to an entire 1000 foot bed stratigraphically except by creationoists.
And if that is the case then the only difference between us is that we would point out that 1000 vertical feet covering only 3 facies and the 800 kilometres traversing 3 prograding beds speaks of something much larger than a slow marine invasion. Austin estimates 0.5 to 2 metres/sec for about 3 days would generate the entire Tonto deposit. The vertical and horizontal scope is very different to your beaches.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 11:17 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1824 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 130 (25792)
12-06-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 10:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I enjoy learning from you but what sort of teacher pretends that his student doesn't understand something he does?
Ummmmmmm, one that gets the impression that the student is willfully ignorant?
quote:
In the very first post of this thread I outlined what transgressive, prograding seqeunces are all about (I summarized it in plain English for the typical reader here):
"in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side."
I'm not sure what current directions have to do with it, but since you bring it up why is the transgression occurring in the opposite direction of the current flow?
quote:
"It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory"
We have been over this. Your lab experiments do not model the entire system. You do not have silts, muds and lime deposits in the flume experiments. Why is TC not backing you up on this, by the way? Oh, maybe because his references point out this fact.
quote:
"under current one gets sorting by particle type and size and the layers are generated both vertically and horizontally at the same time."
"Under current..." Wow! this is pretty deep 'stuff.' This does not express any kind of understanding. Check out your current directions.
quote:
The lower layers at the end of the flow direction are formed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow area but the layers are trackable from start to end.
Yes, the time-stratigraphic unit is the lamination, not the bed. You would understand this if you got some basic training in geology.
quote:
That was my first post!
So, have you made any progress?
quote:
Most of you are quite rude.
Most of us have a terminal case of exasperation that you completely ignore any data that contradicts your mythical scenario.
quote:
I am perfectly aware that regressive seqeunces have been understood for a long time, at least as long as J. Walther of Walther's law (about 100 years ago) if not longer.
Then why do you not understand that a lamination is not a bed is not a time marker.
quote:
But I have never, ever read that applied to an entire 1000 foot bed stratigraphically except by creationoists.
THat is because your investigation is limited. If you truly understood transgressive and regressive sequences, then you would understand this. There are plenty of examples.
quote:
And if that is the case then the only difference between us is that we would point out that 1000 vertical feet covering only 3 facies and the 800 kilometres traversing 3 prograding beds speaks of something much larger than a slow marine invasion.
Three beds? Three facies? Really, where do you get this stuff?
[quote]Austin estimates 0.5 to 2 metres/sec for about 3 days would generate the entire Tonto deposit. The vertical and horizontal scope is very different to your beaches.[/B][/QUOTE]
No it is not ... it is happening today. Do you not read our posts? Talk about rude!
So where does Nevins get his velocities? Does he realize that this is not a flood, but a mudflow? In fact it is not possible to generate limestones under such conditions. A surge that could depoosit the Tonto group in a few days could not permit the deposition of limestone with all of that suspended clastic material. It is also impossible to get evaporites. Sorry, TB, but your lack of background in this area is exposed with every sentence you post. You are getting in deeper and deeper, so to speak. And by the way, we need to talk about your grades...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 10:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 11:35 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 130 (25793)
12-06-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
12-06-2002 11:17 PM


Edge
Austin's reconstruction has 800 horizontal kms from Nevada to New Mexico being laid from west to east via advancing flood waters with mostly 0.5 to 2 m/s flow velocity (W to E). From west to east we have Muav limestone, Bright Angel shale, Tapeats sandstone and the Great Unconformity.
It's fine with me if you think this stuff was laid via hydrodynamic sorting vertically at the same time as horizontally.
quote:
Three beds? Three facies? Really, where do you get this stuff?
I thought we were talking about the 1000 foot Tonto series with three facies: M limestone, BA shale, T sandstone. It is these three which form a transgressive seqeunce from Nevada to NM or are we talking past each other? I apologize about referring to these also as beds. I am unaware of the exact definition of a bed and tend to use it to mean a collection of strata. But I know what a facies and a stratum are technically. Feel free to educate me on the definition of a bed. Should I refer to the Tonto as a bed or a formaiton or either?
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 11:17 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 12-07-2002 10:58 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 130 (25797)
12-06-2002 11:55 PM


So, since none of this is controversial to anyone then it doesn't matter to any of you that what is normally given a 70 my age difference could have been partially ocurring at the same time? That represents about 13% of the Phanezoic geo-col from the Cambrian to the Quaternary. How can you guys ever date a fossil by its position in the Cambrian in that case?
Anyway, if you're prepared to believe that 13% of the Phanezoic is partially overlapping then we will point out that at that sort of rate the pre-Cenozoic Phanezoic could have been formed in about 6 or 7 such episodes. The scale of depositon calls for flow rates that would have deposited it all in a matter of months.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-07-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by wehappyfew, posted 12-07-2002 12:23 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 130 (25798)
12-06-2002 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 10:24 PM


1000m transgressive sequences take a long time to form. Your request is nearly unreasonable. The fact that modern transgressive sequences are universally thin (often tens of meters since the LGM of 40kya) should be a clue that 1000m in five days is not feasible.
Here are some of the numerous examples of modern transgressive sequences:
Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey
"A Continuous Holocene transgressive sequence recorded in an 8-M core taken from northern Chesapeake Bay
A complete sediment sequence that records the Holocene sea level rise, beginning about 8000 yr BP, is well preserved in an 8-m sediment core (RR98-9)..."
"We identified three distinct lithofacies (C, RE, and OE) in core RR98-9. Lithofacies C, a basal channel deposit, is preserved in the lower 50 cm. it is a massive, dark greenish gray (SGY 4/1), moderately sorted, coarse-grained pebbly sand with common wood -fragments. These channel sands were deposited before about 7800 yr BP. Atop lithofacies c is lithofacies RE, whose base is marked by an oyster bed. Lithofacies RE is approximately 320 cm thick and is characterized by dark gray (5Y 4/1) to dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) muddy sand to sandy mud, with scattered oyster beds J15 to 40 cm-thick) and common woody organic layers. Filled burrows are well preserved in the upper loo cm of this lithofacies. The lithology, shell and organic debris, and burrows suggest that RE was deposited in a restricted estuarine environment, probably a sand flat or tidal channel. Lithofacies RE was deposited during the interval of 7800-3740 yr BP. The youngest lithofacies preserved in this trangressive sequence, lithofacies OE, is about 410 cm thick and is composed of massive to diffusely laminated, slightly sandy (trace to 10%) clayey mud."

Notice the fining upward character of the 3 facies, indicative of transgression.
http://www.sci.qut.edu.au/...rch/geopsed.htm#plaeogeographic
Third abstract down on the right side:
"The onset of Tertiary sedimentation was marked by the deposition of a regionally widespread transgressive silisiclastic unit known as the Gobernador Formation, which was deposited under continental conditions in the south-southwest of the basin, changing to coastal marine conditions in the east-northeast. Over most of the area, this quartz-dominated sandstone unit is overlain by marine shelf mudstone, but to the north-northeast part of the study area, the Gobernador Formation passes vertically to the transgressive bioclastic limestones of the masparrito Formation."
"The thickness of the Gobernador Formation varies from 12 m to 220 m..."

So a transgression that spans the whole Teriary can accumulate a pretty significant thickness.
http://www.gl.rhbnc.ac.uk/palaeo/2palynology.html
"The Nanggulan Formation has been shown to be a transgressive sequence containing a series of stacked rising sea level sequences. These sequences may be comparable to the cycles (third order) from TA 3. 4 to TA 4. 1 or from 43. 0 Ma to 36.0 Ma. These sequences support palynological zones. The coastal plain setting (lower unit) changes upward into brackish or marginal marine, then into shallow marine (lower part of middle unit). The palaeoenvironment then shifts into deeper marine, characterised initially by gravity flow deposits and finally by deep water, fine-grained, volcanics and marls."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 10:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-07-2002 12:04 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 130 (25799)
12-07-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by wehappyfew
12-06-2002 11:59 PM


^ But the fact that the three facies that make up the Tonto are about 300 feet thick each but look like a transgressive sequence belies the catastrophic scale. That is the point I am trying to make. The strata can be followed horizontally despite the fact that the age of a stratum traverses much of the age of the bed! In your case a single stratum ridiculously traverses much of 70 million years. It is so obvious that these huge beds were deposited rapidly.
ah2gfwj sbswbng (my oldest son typed that and I'll leave it here for posterity)
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by wehappyfew, posted 12-06-2002 11:59 PM wehappyfew has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 130 (25802)
12-07-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 11:55 PM


TB writes:
So, since none of this is controversial to anyone then it doesn't matter to any of you that what is normally given a 70 my age difference could have been partially ocurring at the same time? That represents about 13% of the Phanezoic geo-col from the Cambrian to the Quaternary. How can you guys ever date a fossil by its position in the Cambrian in that case?
I think you are forgetting that the designation "Cambrian" is determined by the fossils, not the other way around.
The concept of time-transgressive rock formations is not new.
TB writes:
Anyway, if you're prepared to believe that 13% of the Phanezoic is partially overlapping then we will point out that at that sort of rate the pre-Cenozoic Phanezoic was could have been formed in about 6 or 7 such episodes.
The understanding that rock units are often time-transgressive is an integral part of geology.
TB writes:
The scale of depositon calls for flow rates that would have deposited it all in a matter of months.
Ummm... no else here is buying your fantasies about rapid formation of hundreds of feet of limestone and other rocks. Chemically, it is impossible, as has been pointed out to you already. Geologically, modern anologs show precisely what is expected - the 1000meters of the Tonto Group requires a lot of time and a slow average rate of transgression. The long time scale is revealed in every detail of the rock. But your sources have carefully glossed over the details:
YEC-faslifiers such as well-sorted, well-rounded mature sands in the Tapeats and other Cambrian sandstones; extensive bioturbation, burrows, trilobite fragments and fossils; the complete and utter lack of any land animal or plant in the basal unit of the Tapeats; and many, many more.
It looks like we are moving to the fingers-in-the-ears stage of the lesson plan, gents. It's about time to pack it in. Chalk up another in the list: Cyclothems, galactocentrism, helium diffusion in zircon, Paluxy mantracks, and now transgressive sequences. Did I miss any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 11:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-07-2002 12:43 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 130 (25803)
12-07-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by wehappyfew
12-07-2002 12:23 AM


^ Lots of rhetoric Wehappy.
So no comment on the fact that the facies sorted hydrodynamically from each other are about 300 feet thick each?
Wehappy writes:
I think you are forgetting that the designation "Cambrian" is determined by the fossils, not the other way around.
Nevertheless the 70 million year difference, 13% of the Phanezoic, just became overlapping.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wehappyfew, posted 12-07-2002 12:23 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mark24, posted 12-07-2002 4:08 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5313 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 30 of 130 (25806)
12-07-2002 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tranquility Base
12-07-2002 12:43 AM


TB,
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

So no comment on the fact that the facies sorted hydrodynamically from each other are about 300 feet thick each?

Why, then, can I see multiple coarse flat bedded conglomerates within a foot of each other?
"Close up of the Tapeats at the same Verde River outcrop, showing crossbedding from underwater marine dunes that are interbedded with coarse flat bedded conglomerates from shore line wave deposits."
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-07-2002 12:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-07-2002 5:24 PM mark24 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