Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 226 of 314 (278571)
01-12-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by nator
01-12-2006 4:01 PM


biting social commentary.
Anyone who wants a submissive wife really just wants a servant child in a woman's body.
And that is sick.
why do you think we shave our legs? they really want a kinky freak in the body of a child. and with the mind of a child. little kids will do whatever they're told. i guess that's why they make great lovers.
it's fun when we agree. it doesn't happen much, but boy is it fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 01-12-2006 4:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by nator, posted 01-13-2006 8:40 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 227 of 314 (278573)
01-12-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by iano
01-12-2006 1:05 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
while i do agree that it is unneccessary for a leader-follower relationship to be abusive, i do not agree that this is an appropriate manner for two adults involved in a sexual relationship to behave. that's called sexual servitude and it's an international crime.
think about it for a moment. you know how paul says terrible things about men who are 'effeminate' and how sinful they are? why do you think it's so horrible for a man to assume the role of a woman? is it because a woman's role is an honorable one which carries with it great prestige and blessing? no. because it is the position of a sexual servant. it's disgusting and shameful. and that's why they're not allowed to speak in church (or public)... because they are servants and are not worthy of their own opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by iano, posted 01-12-2006 1:05 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 2:05 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 228 of 314 (278583)
01-13-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by macaroniandcheese
01-12-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
brennakimi,
while i do agree that it is unneccessary for a leader-follower relationship to be abusive, i do not agree that this is an appropriate manner for two adults involved in a sexual relationship to behave. that's called sexual servitude and it's an international crime.
The man being the stronger vessel is supposed to have a servants heart like toward the woman. But the woman is supposed to have a servants heart toward the family. When you think your a slave, your missing the whole point of a fundemental marriage. When you take on a job, your a slave (bondsman) but in a marriage your to be of service to your mate. In the church the greater is supposed to be of service to the lesser. Its all about the heart loving one another in servitude, in Christ. Your of the world so you see a loving relationship as a slave to your mate. You don't see the bigger picture that he too is serving you, its a two way street you being the weaker vessel. You wouldn't want to deprive your man of sex (I take that back you probably use to manipulate the man) Whatever, in a fundemental marriage, your a mom, a wife and even a sister to others in the Christian community.
I used to read some books by George MacDonald who expressed these points better than most mortal men. He was a Christian philopher and a poet, touching on the heart. But a more simple book to understand the heart from say a Christian point of view, read "A Man Called Norman".
In a marriage you need to have a servants heart to love the man, and the man to serve you too in love. Its not about being a slave but a servant. Its about being mature adults not immature about the needs of the marriage.
You need to understand marriage is caring about your husband and the husband caring for you. You seem to think its only about self but in a Christian marriage its about the greater serving the lesser. If the woman is the weaker vessel your getting the better deal in a christian marriage.
In a regular marriage you likely could get away with whining about being a slave not so in a Christian marriage, your both a servant to the other. How is that a bad thing? Whats wrong in sharing in the needs of the other.
The greatest in the kingdom of God is a servant to all (I think thats what the Word says?) So in some ways your considered great in the kingdom of God for serving the man. If the man is busting himself for your family he's serving you all with his labor, he being the greater vessel. If he comes home exhausted and you've done nothing all day and then whine (complain) then what are you serving the husband.
Its really not all that hard, you've got Micro-wave, tv dinners, washing machines, Cars, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, canned food, etc... In the older days they had to everything by hand, you really have nothing to complain about. Right?
Its not about a leader follower relationship but about two mature people realizing its by serving one another that we show your love one to the other. Your leading by example to your children and those that you have the honor to serve.
The mans the head, your next, then the children. The children ask you, and your not the head because your the softie (estrogen) so need to have the requests filtered through the husband. Dads are not supposed to be effeminate (soft)(tetosterone right?) so the kids will naturally want to deal with the mother. If the mother bends too much to the kids demands then shes being disrespectful to the marriage.
If I'm wrong and the bible does not say the greater serves the lesser, then correct me, but I think girl your in the drivers seat in a Christian Marriage.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-13-2006 03:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-12-2006 11:56 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by FliesOnly, posted 01-13-2006 7:37 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 231 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2006 7:42 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 236 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2006 10:25 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 243 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-13-2006 12:36 PM johnfolton has replied

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


Message 229 of 314 (278605)
01-13-2006 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by crashfrog
01-12-2006 11:38 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
But before you appeared to be defending the Biblical view because it's actually effective. That, I can't let pass. The Biblical view is a repressive throwback to a time when marriage was a kind of slavery for women. It's one thing to defend it because it appears to be the will of your god but quite another to try to defend it on its own merits; on its own merits, its quite indefensable.
I think your mixing up what the bible model is with that which you have seen occur on the ground. If you see headship as some kind of rulership where the wife is supposed to meekly obey and carry out the menial tasks around the home then you conflict with the model indicated in the bible. Jesus is the head of the church/body and it is him who we are pointed at for out modeling of headship. Jesus didn't rule. He sacrificed.
A man shold sacrifice his own dreams and desires for the good of his family - not seek to use his position as a means to achieve that which he wants for himself - which is what so often happens
Can you show me in the Bible where it says that God has decreed that men shall balance the checkbook and women shall cook and sew?
I can't because it is not there. And the reason it is not there is probably because there is nothing wrong with a man cooking and sewing or a woman balancing the books. Your outlook is heavily caracatured Crash.
crash writes:
The only time two people need a "head" to make decisions for both of them is if one or both of them can't reliably see beyond their own interests, and such people have no business being married in the first place.
iano writes:
whether a risky but life enhancing operation should be performed on a child.
Faith was right when she said I gave poor examples. More children is one of them from the viewpoint of opening a can of worms labelled off-topicism-potential but what about this one? Do you mean that people cannot have heartfelt and well worked out reasons for differing on such an issue? Lets assume they have talked to the doctors, prayed etc and still disagree. You offer divorce as the only alternative.
Divorce. These are called "irreconcilable differences." If they don't want a divorce, then they figure out a compromise
When living in a flat with an equally argumentitive mate some years back we used to toss a coin.
A clever abdication, but it won't work. You've already made it clear, from previous posts, that you're trying to defend the Biblical view on its own merits. Naturally, fundamentalists would (and have) do anything that they believe God requires, beneficial or not. The question is, how is their view of marriage defensible on its own merits?
And I remember pointing out that the prime area of interest of God is not that the marraige not have mistakes and lacks on the part of both parties. God doesn't expect that both will get it right all the time. His interest is in obedience unto holiness. As both obey God blesses. The issue of headship falls away as God works with both to enable them to carry out their part in HIS scheme of things. A believers marraige differs from an unbelievers marraige in that the contract is drawn up between 3 parties not 2. God is the head of it all and it is him which both the man and the woman serve ultimately.
He decides the roles and is the manager of the team. It is not for the players to question the manager who has the better overview of things
Repression, restriction, abuse of power do occur but that is not following the biblical model. It is misusing the biblical model. As with anything else - one can take a piece of scripture an haul it out of context to suit oneself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 01-12-2006 11:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 9:34 AM iano has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 230 of 314 (278608)
01-13-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
01-13-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
The Golfer writes:
Its not about being a slave but a servant.
Priceless
The Golfer writes:
You seem to think its only about self but in a Christian marriage its about the greater serving the lesser. If the woman is the weaker vessel your getting the better deal in a christian marriage.
I love this stuff.
The Golfer writes:
In a regular marriage you likely could get away with whining about being a slave not so in a Christian marriage, your both a servant to the other. How is that a bad thing? Whats wrong in sharing in the needs of the other.
Regular marriage?
The Golfer writes:
Its really not all that hard, you've got Micro-wave, tv dinners, washing machines, Cars, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, canned food, etc... In the older days they had to everything by hand, you really have nothing to complain about. Right?
I never though of it this way...what the hell is my lazy-ass wife complaining about! Maybe I should stop "Sparing the Rod"...if you know what I mean. ("Wink, wink...nod, nod...say no more, say no more").
You're a hoot! Keep up the good work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 2:05 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-13-2006 7:46 AM FliesOnly has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 231 of 314 (278609)
01-13-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
01-13-2006 2:05 AM


Passenger Seat Driving
quote:
Its really not all that hard, you've got Micro-wave, tv dinners, washing machines, Cars, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, canned food, etc... In the older days they had to everything by hand, you really have nothing to complain about. Right?
Nothing to complain about? Where to begin? Microwave (makes my food unhealthy), TV Dinners (chemical preservatives, unhealthy meat, HFC, sugar), canned food (chemical preservatives, HFC, etc.), Cars (high speeds, dangerous), vacuum cleaners (ear damage, dust). It is harder to find truly healthy food for our families since we don't have as much direct control over our food sources. I have to do medical research so I can make sure the doctor is actually addressing my families' medical needs, so we don't get stuck with useless charges or treatments. Same with mechanical research.
quote:
If I'm wrong and the bible does not say the greater serves the lesser, then correct me, but I think girl your in the drivers seat in a Christian Marriage.
It is more like driving from the passenger seat.

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 2:05 AM johnfolton has not replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 314 (278610)
01-13-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by FliesOnly
01-13-2006 7:37 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
FliesOnly writes:
Regular marriage?
You know, a marriage started in any of the last three centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by FliesOnly, posted 01-13-2006 7:37 AM FliesOnly has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 233 of 314 (278616)
01-13-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by macaroniandcheese
01-12-2006 11:51 PM


Re: biting social commentary.
quote:
why do you think we shave our legs? they really want a kinky freak in the body of a child. and with the mind of a child. little kids will do whatever they're told. i guess that's why they make great lovers.
it's fun when we agree. it doesn't happen much, but boy is it fun.
Right on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-12-2006 11:51 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

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


Message 234 of 314 (278628)
01-13-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by iano
01-13-2006 6:07 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
And the reason it is not there is probably because there is nothing wrong with a man cooking and sewing or a woman balancing the books. Your outlook is heavily caracatured Crash.
Mine? I'm not the one advancing the idea that it's men's work to do X, but women's work to do Y. You are. I'm just trying to get you to fill in your blanks.
Do you mean that people cannot have heartfelt and well worked out reasons for differing on such an issue? Lets assume they have talked to the doctors, prayed etc and still disagree. You offer divorce as the only alternative.
Your alternative has one parent abdicate her responsibility to do what is best for her child. Is that a course of action that you can respect? I can't.
And I remember pointing out that the prime area of interest of God is not that the marraige not have mistakes and lacks on the part of both parties. God doesn't expect that both will get it right all the time. His interest is in obedience unto holiness.
Then who cares? If God's way doesn't lead to better marriages, why bother with it? Because it's what God wants? Who cares what he wants?
A believers marraige differs from an unbelievers marraige in that the contract is drawn up between 3 parties not 2.
Well, no, in fact civil marriage is still a contract with both your partner and your county. Even in religious marriage, God is just a witness ("we gather here in the sight of God", etc.), so there's really no difference between religious and civil marriage other than the participation of a church.
It is not for the players to question the manager who has the better overview of things
Who has the better view, though, is very much at issue here. If God's plan doesn't lead to a better marriage, then how can God be said to have the better overview? Sounds like people do a lot better without him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 6:07 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 237 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2006 10:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 235 of 314 (278635)
01-13-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
01-13-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
Your alternative has one parent abdicate her responsibility to do what is best for her child. Is that a course of action that you can respect? I can't.
She has the option of trusting what her God tells her. That is hardly abdication. Whats so bad about trusting God Crash. Something that is worse than your option, divorce?
so there's really no difference between religious and civil marriage other than the participation of a church.
I was referring to a believers marriage not a religious marriage. Get a bunch of believers to say that God is not a central part of the marriage and you'll make your point. I'll defer to the opinion of folk who are in a position to know
Who has the better view, though, is very much at issue here. If God's plan doesn't lead to a better marriage, then how can God be said to have the better overview? Sounds like people do a lot better without him.
No believer is going to question who has the better view so I can't see what progress there is to made discussing it. A couple who dutifully obey Gods role in their marriage will not be in a position to know what would have happened had they taken a route of their own design. How do you figure that people do a lot better of without Gods guidance in marraige. (please don't quote some figures of 'Christian' divorce rates exceedding secular ones at me will ya?)
This message has been edited by iano, 13-Jan-2006 03:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 9:34 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by docpotato, posted 01-13-2006 10:54 AM iano has replied
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 1:50 PM iano has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 236 of 314 (278639)
01-13-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
01-13-2006 2:05 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
Your of the world so you see a loving relationship as a slave to your mate. You don't see the bigger picture that he too is serving you, its a two way street you being the weaker vessel. You wouldn't want to deprive your man of sex (I take that back you probably use to manipulate the man)
thanks for the vote of confidence asshole.

Toatally uncalled for. You are suspended for a personal attack on another poster.

no. i see a loving relationship as a meeting of equals. my husband will be my friend. and like my other friends, we will share equally in decisions and ideas and time and work and chores and play. i have had this one friend for 5 years. we've both loaned each other so much that i don't know if we'll ever be even (we can't and don't bother to keep track of the numbers). but, we're even in our nature of giving to one another. we live a bit away but we trade off on visits. we buy each other meals, art supplies, books... we loan each other money when needed. we keep each other together. we discuss important things. we discuss unimportant things. we find new, exotic restaurants to go to to keep our lives interesting. that's what i see a true friendship being. and that's what a marriage should be. a true friendship. now, i have no interest in this friend of mine. i'm dating someone else who i'm thrilled with (more or less). but that is still what i base my goals on. i have no interest in letting a man run everything while i tend to my house and family. i have no interest in rotting in my house all day or working myself to death between job and kids and on top of all of that, being required to come home and 'please my man'. if that ever happens... he has a hand. but, thank god for science, it won't happen.
You seem to think its only about self but in a Christian marriage its about the greater serving the lesser. If the woman is the weaker vessel your getting the better deal in a christian marriage.
clearly if i'm viewed as weaker then i am not getting the better deal. if you want to worry about the greater serving the weaker, you should stop worrying about your woman and start wondering why there are still starving children around the world.
In a regular marriage you likely could get away with whining about being a slave not so in a Christian marriage, your both a servant to the other. How is that a bad thing? Whats wrong in sharing in the needs of the other.
there's nothing wrong with serving each other. but requiring all-encompassing specific roles is not serving each other.
If the man is busting himself for your family he's serving you all with his labor, he being the greater vessel. If he comes home exhausted and you've done nothing all day and then whine (complain) then what are you serving the husband.
you have a very distorted view of the world's idea of marriage. or at least of my idea of marriage.
Its really not all that hard, you've got Micro-wave, tv dinners, washing machines, Cars, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, canned food, etc... In the older days they had to everything by hand, you really have nothing to complain about. Right?
yeah except being required to be a maid on top of whatever i really want to do with my life.
Its not about a leader follower relationship but about two mature people realizing its by serving one another that we show your love one to the other. Your leading by example to your children and those that you have the honor to serve.
again, there's nothing wrong with serving one another in love. but having a man made decisions while the woman is in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (again) is not two mature adults serving each other. it's one adult being served by a maid and a prostitute and one 'adult' being used as a maid and a baby factory for 'room and board' payment.
The mans the head, your next, then the children. The children ask you, and your not the head because your the softie (estrogen) so need to have the requests filtered through the husband. Dads are not supposed to be effeminate (soft)(tetosterone right?) so the kids will naturally want to deal with the mother. If the mother bends too much to the kids demands then shes being disrespectful to the marriage.
i am not a softie. in fact. most mothers i have known are the disciplinarians. the dads were the softies. and if you think for one minute i'm going to feed my decisions through the man... when raising children, the proper way is to have a set formula for decisions. you already have rules. you make those rules clear to each other and to the children. you think about as much in advance as possible. if the child desires something and it fits within the rules, then he gets it. that's called being honest. children thrive on honesty. children raised waiting for daddy's heavy hand do not thrive. they grow up fearful and paranoid.
but I think girl your in the drivers seat in a Christian Marriage.
clearly not.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-13-2006 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 01-13-2006 2:05 AM johnfolton has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 237 of 314 (278640)
01-13-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
01-13-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
Mine? I'm not the one advancing the idea that it's men's work to do X, but women's work to do Y. You are. I'm just trying to get you to fill in your blanks.
well clearly women work to do X and men work to do Y. minor detail. but very important to the rules. apparently. if a woman were to do Y, she would not be serving her husband. and if a man were to do X, he'd be a fag and we'd have to stone him. funny thing that standard...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2006 9:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 238 of 314 (278648)
01-13-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by iano
01-13-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
She has the option of trusting what her God tells her. That is hardly abdication. Whats so bad about trusting God Crash. Something that is worse than your option, divorce?
The problem is that God rarely makes himself known other than through personal, subjective feelings. So you have husband saying, "God told me we need the operation," and wife saying, "God told me we don't!"
I suppose in a fundamental Christian marriage the man would be able to claim that his knowledge of what God wants is superior to hers, no?

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 10:12 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by iano, posted 01-13-2006 12:13 PM docpotato has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 239 of 314 (278649)
01-13-2006 11:00 AM


Green Acres
This topic reminds me of a line in the theme song for the show Green Acres. The husband wants to live on a farm. The wife wants to live in the city. They argue through song as to where they should live until the husband says, "You are my wife..." to which she replies, "Goodbye city life!" And, so, the city-loving wife is forced to move to a farm.
That's always seemed unfair to me. I suppose the reason I bring this up is to ask: in a fundamentalist marriage, what would be the correct way to solve the dispute here?

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

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


Message 240 of 314 (278660)
01-13-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by docpotato
01-13-2006 10:54 AM


Re: Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage
The problem is that God rarely makes himself known other than through personal, subjective feelings. So you have husband saying, "God told me we need the operation," and wife saying, "God told me we don't!"
So, two people turn genuinely to God and seek his guidance. So he gives them opposing answers....?
What do you reckon is the solution to the problem - assuming Crash's one of initiating divorce proceedings is not considered optimal by you?
I suppose in a fundamental Christian marriage the man would be able to claim that his knowledge of what God wants is superior to hers, no?
If we accept for a moment that man as head of the household is God ordained then it is reasonable to suppose that God will honour and seek to enable that which he has instigated. No man can know anything of God unless God reveals it to them - so superiority has nothing to do with it
There is a persistance in viewing headship as better or more powerful than followership. Persistance in thinking the head role is the juicy one. But this is only so in the worlds model of things - not the bibles. There is no indication in the bible that Jesus is lesser than the Father or the Father less worthy than the Holy Spirit. A man who submitted himself to his father becomes the entrance by which all men can come to the father. Hardly a weak, secondary role. Is it?
The problem is one of failing to understand the biblical model of things and inserting worlds values onto the words: submit, serve, obey....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by docpotato, posted 01-13-2006 10:54 AM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2006 12:23 PM iano has replied
 Message 244 by docpotato, posted 01-13-2006 12:41 PM iano has replied
 Message 257 by nator, posted 01-14-2006 4:28 PM iano 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