Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF OF GOD
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 721 of 739 (129983)
08-03-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2004 9:42 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
WillowTree quoting Lemesurier writes:
As to whether we should regard the full-design Pyramid (with Rutherford) as standing on a perfectly square base, or (with Cole) on a slightly distorted one, this must remain a matter for personal preference, since the actual construction was never undertaken. Yet perhaps this fact itself is significant in the context. Had the full-design Pyramid ever been completed, then EITHER Rutherford's Pyramid or that based on Cole's measurements would have been ruled out of account. However, both possibilities exist: the architect has succeeded in having his cake and eating it too. The fact that BOTH perimeter- measurements are for all practical purposes identical suggests that both Rutherford's version AND Cole's were present in the architects mind, the one being merely another version of the other. In this case it is clear that the BASIC design must have been the simple square as proposed by Rutherford.
This is Lemesurier's speculation. What evidence do you have that there was ever an "original design"? What evidence do you have that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as a footing for the casing stones below pavement level? If we assume an original design for the sake of discussion, what evidence do you have for the proportions of that pyramid.
No rational person who generically considers the GP to be a "World Wonder" can dismiss the exact measurement figures of 5448.736...
There is no such measurement. This is the supposed height of the capstone platform of your hypothetical pyramid that was never built.
...AND the exact measurement figure of 286.1 and its multiple appearance to be nothing other than designer intent.
You still haven't established that 286.1 has any special significance except in the realm of numerology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2004 9:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

GVGS58
Junior Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 722 of 739 (130034)
08-03-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by Percy
08-03-2004 10:10 AM


Re: CHECKMATE
Try measuring the diameter of something circular. If it's small and you have a micrometer you may be able to get as accurate as a 100th of an inch. Let's say the diameter is .87 inches. Now multiply by pi to get the circumference, which would give us 2.73318561. But we only have accuracy to the 100ths of an inch, so the best we can say is that the circumference is 2.73 inches.
Just a nitpick, but since you have only two significant numbers in 0.87, you can only say the circumference is 2.7 inches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Percy, posted 08-03-2004 10:10 AM Percy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 723 of 739 (130047)
08-03-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by Percy
08-03-2004 10:10 AM


Re: CHECKMATE
You haven't said anything here that you haven't said before.
Knowingly false comment. The checkmate post contains new and irrefutable evidence.
Especially puzzling is your return to the accuracy issue.
This issue is not a matter of opinion - the accuracy is self evident and proven objectively by three sources, you are an intelligent person daring anyone to cross you and recognize the evidence. Whats the point in having multiple sources if opponents are just going to assert ?
You are, in reality, saying, someones religious beliefs (Rutherford's) is the source and motivation for him to invent massive fraud.
Lets get something straight: The evangelical worldview is the superior source of truth and honesty. It is the scientific worldview which is admittedly biased and defective via the exclusion.....oops..."neutrality" concerning the Divine.
I comfort myself with the fact that religious people, persons who claim belief in God (the Pharisees) SAW Jesus perform miracles in their presence and they still didn't believe, if "God's people" don't believe then how much less secular ?
This topic from the get-go claimed empirical evidence proving the God of the Bible. Every evo on this board CLAIMED an open mind to evidence for the Divine - now that it is slapping you in the face - the collective response is to keep a straight face and assert fraud in euphemistic terms and analogies.
It would be helpful if you could move the discussion forward by responding to the rebuttals instead of just repeating your unsupported assertions.
I have proven the height with voluminous evidence/multiple sources.
To claim otherwise reveals the inability to abide by evidenciary standard of debate rules and an admission that the point will never be conceded no matter what.
Concede the height issue - the evidence demands it - now.
If not, then every member of this board (evo/creo) knows deep down that their evidence now has the basis to never win a point/concession.
Your mind too clouded to consider and weigh the counterarguments, you instead just repeat, "It must be divine."
If this were true you wouldn't be a participant in an unprecedented 720 page debate.
Your presence and attention is tightly tethered to this debate because of the spectacular evidence proving the God of the Bible.
The Divinity claim is the plainly stated goal of the evidence declared in Post 1.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-03-2004 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Percy, posted 08-03-2004 10:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-03-2004 3:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 725 by Percy, posted 08-03-2004 4:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 724 of 739 (130057)
08-03-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2004 3:16 PM


Re: CHECKMeasurements
This issue is not a matter of opinion - the accuracy is self evident and proven objectively by three sources, you are an intelligent person daring anyone to cross you and recognize the evidence. Whats the point in having multiple sources if opponents are just going to assert?
WILLOWTREE! You are correct - the issue is not a matter of opinion, but it is also nota matter of assertion or source.
The issue of accuracy is basic to measurements and math using measurements - the concept generally taught in high school as "significant digits."
Since you do not seem to understand significant digits, I'm including a few links to how they are determined and how they are used in calculations. Hopefully they will help with the issue at hand:
It is important to be honest when reporting a measurement, so that it does not appear to be more accurate than the equipment used to make the measurement allows. We can achieve this by controlling the number of digits, or significant figures, used to report the measurement.
Significant Figures
For measured numbers, significant figures relate the certainty of the measurement. As the number of significant figures increases, the more
certain the measurement.
http://www.towson.edu/~ladon/sigfigs.html
When multiplying or dividing measurements, the answer should contain the same number of significant digits as the measurement with the least number of significant digits.
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/...t/Significant_Digits.html
When we work with numbers that come from the real world (such as measurements from a ruler), the numbers are not exact, but carry some amount of inaccuracy with them...
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58335.html
These links contain much more information, including sample calculations. Hopefully you will check them out and better understand how real-world measurements effect math.
And perhaps read the quote above from the third source listed - it is the leastaccurate measurement that determines the final accuracy, and not the most accurate (pi as claimed by your sources).
When Percy is denying the accuracy your sources claim, it is out of basic mathematical concepts, not opinion or assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2004 3:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 725 of 739 (130061)
08-03-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2004 3:16 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
Hi WillowTree,
If no evidence is provided, then it doesn't matter how many times you assert something, or how many people assert something. Your assertions need to be supported with evidence, something you have yet to do.
You still haven't addressed these questions:
  1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
  2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
  3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
  4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
  5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718.
In your Message 711 you said, "I will shortly be providing additional evidence about the socket stone perimeter and the 286.1 differential figure." Your Message 179 was just more assertion, so you haven't done this yet.
You said you would get to the socket stone issue, but all you offered was Lemesurier's speculations, so you haven't done this yet, either.
You said the dimensions of the capstone of the unbuilt original design were known and that you described how this is so in Message 572, but this message only contains more assertions based upon the unsupported assumption that the unbuilt pyramid had the same proportions as the one actually built. You first need evidence that there was an original design, then you need evidence for it's proportions. You have neither so far.
Supporting contentions in a legal proceding is similar to supporting your assertions in a scientific discussion. You need to have an unbroken chain of evidence. Imagine if you were the prosecuting attorney and said, "I have here the gun used to murder the victim, and it proves the accused is guilty." But if you haven't linked the gun to the accused or placed the accused at the scene then all you have is conjecture.
That's what you have now with your Great Pyramid claims, conjecture. You have to begin connecting the dots of conjecture with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2004 3:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 726 of 739 (130080)
08-03-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 719 by Cold Foreign Object
08-02-2004 9:42 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
Willowtree, you quote
In 1925, professional surveyor J.H. Cole produced "Determination of the Exact Size and Orientation of the Great Pyramid" [Cairo, Government Press, 1925]
West Side: 9059.5766 PI"
North Side: 9055.4078 PI"
East Side: 9060.9137 PI"
South Side: 9063.3914 PI"
Total Perimeter of Base: 36239.2895 PI"
Cole himself suggests an average tolerance of some 1 1/4 inches per side.
Lemesurier: Extrapolating from Cole's figures, which are based on a concavity of 35.762 PI" the base square would thus be:
West Side: 9131.1021 PI"
North Side: 9126.9333 PI"
East Side: 9132.4392 PI"
South Side: 9134.9169 PI"
Total Perimeter of Base: 36525.3915 PI"
The problem here is that if you include the "concavity" which is actually an angle where two straight lines meet, you change the face of the pyramid from a two-dimentional plane into a three dimensional structure. Once you've done that, you can't apply the basic trigonometry to do the height calculation, since this calculation depends on the base being a straight line. It gives you a larger length than actually is the distance between the corners and it's the straight line distance between the corners that you need to use.
Even using this larger length in the calculations, which will overestimate the height to the apex, the figure comes out at 5808 PI, 5 PI shorter than the 5813 claimed.
We need to find out why this is and whether it would change any other numbers used such as the 5449 figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-02-2004 9:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Percy, posted 08-03-2004 9:49 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 728 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2004 10:40 PM Trixie has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 727 of 739 (130166)
08-03-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Trixie
08-03-2004 5:07 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
Trixie writes:
The problem here is that if you include the "concavity"...
This is the same mistake I made the first time WillowTree cited those figures. As far as I can tell, WillowTree is confused about the concavity, and I think you should ignore his comment about it.
The smaller figures are the sides of the actual Great Pyramid. The larger figures are the sides of a square marked at the corners by the socket stones. WillowTree believes the socket stones are actually the cornerstones for an "original design" of a larger pyramid that was never built. The 5449 figure is the height to the non-existent capstone platform of this non-existent pyramid. The difference in heights of the capstone platforms of the actual pyramid and the non-existent pyramid represents his rectification factor, 286.1.
I've verified the figures for the actual pyramid and they check out. I haven't verified the figures for the non-existent pyramid - I'll wait until WillowTree presents some evidence that there was ever an "original design" before I put in any effort on this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Trixie, posted 08-03-2004 5:07 PM Trixie has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 728 of 739 (130180)
08-03-2004 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Trixie
08-03-2004 5:07 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
Hi Trixie:
The problem here is that if you include the "concavity" which is actually an angle where two straight lines meet, you change the face of the pyramid from a two-dimentional plane into a three dimensional structure.
Nobody changes anything.
The GP has concavity, discovered in 1940, well after Cole measured.
Concavity, technically makes the GP an 8 dimensional sided structure.
That is 2 sides per the 4 sides = 8 total sides.
If you include the top - 9 sides.
If you include the bottom - 10 sides.
Once you've done that, you can't apply the basic trigonometry to do the height calculation, since this calculation depends on the base being a straight line. It gives you a larger length than actually is the distance between the corners and it's the straight line distance between the corners that you need to use.
This is why they measure the depth of the concavity and factor that figure accordingly when needed.
But it doesn't really matter BECAUSE the only two MUST HAVE measurements are the side length of the original casing stone perimeter AND the angle of side slope = 51 degrees 51' 14.3'
With these two measurements the height MUST converge at a certain height which is not subject to opinion or interpretation.
Even using this larger length in the calculations, which will overestimate the height to the apex, the figure comes out at 5808 PI, 5 PI shorter than the 5813 claimed.
How so ?
Trixie:
In case you missed it - Message 604 evidences the perimeters and concavity.
Depth of side concavity = 35.762 x 2 per side x 4 = 286.1 PI"
Where is the numerology ?
That is a rhetorical question not directed at you Trixie.
thanks,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Trixie, posted 08-03-2004 5:07 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Percy, posted 08-04-2004 2:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 729 of 739 (130326)
08-04-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by Cold Foreign Object
08-03-2004 10:40 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
Hi WillowTree,
You need to provide evidence, not just repeat your assertions.
WillowTree writes:
Trixie:
In case you missed it - Message 604 evidences the perimeters and concavity.
Depth of side concavity = 35.762 x 2 per side x 4 = 286.1 PI"
You are providing measurements for a non-existent pyramid. You cannot know whether it would have had concave sides, or if it did, what the depth of the concavity would have been. On an objective level, your 35.762 figure only represents the distance between the outside of the pyramid and the outside of the socket stones.
The difference in perimeters between the original Great Pyramid and a perimeter drawn around the socket stones appears to be the only place where your 286.1 figure occurs. Every other occurrence is based upon comparisons with a non-existent pyramid that was never built and for whose plans you have no evidence.
Here's the list of open issues again:
  1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
  2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
  3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
  4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
  5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718.
Concerning the last point, it shouldn't be taking such a long time for you to examine the LLM data, so let me help you. Starting with the meridian through the Great Pyramid, please let us know if you agree with the first line of the table from Message 718:
Longitude: 31.134458
Latitude Start: 29.978810
Latitude End: 31.595859
Distance (miles): 111.73
This figure happens to correspond to the distance from the Great Pyramid north along the 31.134458 meridian to the Mediterranean coast of Egypt. I've checked it on a map, though not as accurately as Lindum, and I agree with this figure. Do you agree with this figure? Please let me know and we'll move to the next line in Lindum's table.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-03-2004 10:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-04-2004 4:06 PM Percy has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 730 of 739 (130383)
08-04-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Percy
08-04-2004 2:08 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
You need to provide evidence, not just repeat your assertions.
The only reason you say this is because I have supplied all my claims and evidence with source cites.
You detest the evidence clearly supporting the claims, therefore, it becomes paramount to constantly remind the debate contrary to what anyone can verify for themself.
The height has now been proven = 5449 PI" = the grand total of Isaiah 19:19,20
The irony of every evo in this world claiming an intense desire to entertain God "only if there was empirical evidence".
What more could anyone ask for than the above facts ? Then the interior passage system matching the central Biblical claims is UNDENIABLE and ASTOUNDING. It is see for yourself evidence - what more could be asked ?
Add the prophetic chronograph evidence and it becomes beyond astounding - ineffable.
Don't trust the North Star alignment/Alcyone intersection of 2141 BC ?
Mainstream scholarship all agrees that Christ died 33 AD. The visual symbolism of the first ascending passage AND the sudden expansion of the Grand Gallery - that point is 33 AD the death of Christ. Backtrack the 1 inch for 1 year scale backdown to the descending passage and then back down to the Scored Line marker and it comes to 2141 BC, thus the staring benchmark date is confirmed to be correct.
Don't trust 33 AD to be the death of Christ ?
Just before the Ante-Chamber a person must stoop suddenly before they can proceed. The exact date of that compresseed portion of passage is 1914.
What monumental event happened in 1914 ?
WW 1 began - nobody can deny that.
Backtrack the inches and 33 AD is confirmed and of course all the way back 2141 BC is confirmed.
You evos are smart in the obscure disciplines of geology, biology, fossils, C-14 dating, entropic cascades etc.etc. yet this plain to see and easy to verify spectacular visual evidence is suddenly "confusing" to you.
Evos are only giving lip service to their phony claim of empirical evidence for God.
When evos say they need evidence for God they have now been proven to be engaging in patronization.
Percy just ignores the published figures of secular surveyor J.H. Cole and the confirmation of those figures being identical to Rutherford.
Peter Lemesurier confirms this fact and brilliantly presents the evidence to confirm the claims I have made.
P.L. is clearly hostile to evangelical christianity but he objectively affirms the confirmed veracity of Rutherford's measurements.
Percy would have everyone believe that a secular surveyor in 1925 and a christian scientist in 1957 and a respected author in 1977 and 2000 are all engaged in massive fraud.
Percy only asserts this slander BECAUSE of the irrefutable evidence and its TRI-FOLD objective affirmation.
I make claims and provide voluminous evidence and clear explanations.
In response, opponents clown the debate and act as if it is not there.
OR they reveal their true colors from time to time and assert fraud which confirms the existence of the evidence in the preceding pages and its veracity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Percy, posted 08-04-2004 2:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Percy, posted 08-04-2004 4:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 731 of 739 (130408)
08-04-2004 4:46 PM


Now, most Bible scholars agree that Jesus Christ was born in 4 BC or 5 BC. (I would be even less sure and propose 7-3 BC)
Does this conflict with the data or doesn't it?
Since many measurements seem to be pointing towards historical data, is it important to use the real birth year of Christ, or the one made up centuries later?
Lucy

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering
"Dear God, I understand that if I fail to believe in you, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Thanks for being such a good sport about it." -- Dr. Oswald Pratt

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 732 of 739 (130409)
08-04-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Cold Foreign Object
08-04-2004 4:06 PM


Re: CHECKMATE
WillowTree writes:
The height has now been proven = 5449 PI" = the grand total of Isaiah 19:19,20
Your 5449 height is for the non-existent capstone platform of a non-existent pyramid that was never built, but that you claim was originally designed before the Great Pyramid. The open issues remain as follows:
  1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
  2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
  3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
  4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
  5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718? Here is the data from the top line of the first table from Message 718:
    Longitude: 31.134458
    Latitude Start: 29.978810
    Latitude End: 31.595859
    Distance (miles): 111.73
    Do you agree with this figure? Please let us know so we can move on to the next line of the table.
We're looking forward to your answers to these issues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-04-2004 4:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 733 of 739 (130509)
08-04-2004 10:11 PM


So far the evidence is quite compelling!
Though I have not had the time necessary to thoroughly investigate the claims made in this thread, I must say that to this point, with the sites I have visited, both those offered here as well as a number of others, the evidence seems overwhelming in favor of WillowTree's initial assertions.
I have also noticed a small number of evo's play the runaround game here, to their own shame, while totally ignoring a substantial amount of material that has been offered up by WillowTree. While I am not yet to willing to totally concede to his initial claims, which are indeed supported by the evidence I have checked out thus far, I must reluctantly admit that there is alot more here that checks out than I thought there would be, so much so that I just can not, in good conscience, summarily dismissed it as erroneous, as I have seen others do.
I shall continue with my investigation, continually keeping an open mind, and shall not come to a final conclusion until I have exhausted all avenues available which may further support or challenge the initial claims made by WillowTree.
So says DarkStar.....The Truly Open-Minded Evo!

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2004 10:36 PM DarkStar has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 734 of 739 (130515)
08-04-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by DarkStar
08-04-2004 10:11 PM


Re: So far the evidence is quite compelling!
DS, since you are:
I shall continue with my investigation, continually keeping an open mind, and shall not come to a final conclusion until I have exhausted all avenues available which may further support or challenge the initial claims made by WillowTree.
What comment to you have on Percy's question regarding something much simpler and less jumbled up than the GP height question?
quote:
What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718? Here is the data from the top line of the first table from Message 718:
Longitude: 31.134458
Latitude Start: 29.978810
Latitude End: 31.595859
Distance (miles): 111.73
Do you agree with this figure? Please let us know so we can move on to the next line of the table
This is a nice simple piece of calculation. It involves something we can all look at. It is arithmetic rather than trigonometry.
What does your open mind say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by DarkStar, posted 08-04-2004 10:11 PM DarkStar has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 735 of 739 (130519)
08-04-2004 11:15 PM


Closing time soon?
I think this topic should be closed before it self-destructs link the Exodus topic did.
Maybe some final statements?
Please send any replies to this message to the "Changes in Moderation?" topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2004 1:39 AM Adminnemooseus 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