RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,04:14   

Speaking of ‘not being consistent’:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/445#comment-11687

Quote


Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB’s in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.
Comment by DaveScot — November 1, 2005 @ 12:22 pm


“Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery” – But Davetard, Honey, aren’t you agnostic? So presumably you too “hold no moral absolutes” and so “there’s no telling what you’ll do”.

Twat.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,04:27   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2006,09:14)
Quote


Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB’s in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.
Comment by DaveScot — November 1, 2005 @ 12:22 pm


Except when he killed that fig tree that didn't produce fruit (when not in fig season)?  Or the time he let 2000 demons possess some pigs and kill them?  Or the time he went and literally whipped the money changers in the temple?

DaveTard's grasp of theology is about on par with his grasp on science.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,04:35   

Oh, this is classic.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1294#comment-47136

Quote
Watching the ID/evolution debate as I have since high school (I’m 23 and a college graduate), I’ve noticed that it’s always the opponents of ID that end up talking about religion. I don’t blame them. They have nothing else to talk about.

Comment by tragicmishap — July 8, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

What makes it even funnier is that it's sandwiched between 2 comments where the authors are quoting scripture at each other in a theological debate.  You can't make this stuff up.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,05:42   

Quote (GCT @ July 10 2006,10:35)
Oh, this is classic.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1294#comment-47136

Quote
Watching the ID/evolution debate as I have since high school (I’m 23 and a college graduate), I’ve noticed that it’s always the opponents of ID that end up talking about religion. I don’t blame them. They have nothing else to talk about.

Comment by tragicmishap — July 8, 2006 @ 3:05 pm

What makes it even funnier is that it's sandwiched between 2 comments where the authors are quoting scripture at each other in a theological debate.  You can't make this stuff up.

LOL yeah. The very next comment explains to us, quoting the bible, why Ken Miller must not be a true christian.

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,05:47   

And, I forgot to mention that DaveTard has had to tell the troops to stop talking religion, at least twice now.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,06:55   

Quote
If you must brag, brag about something you're good at.  It's jarring to hear you bragging about your intelligence, your logical thinking ability, and your scientific knowledge when you make glaring errors every day in each of those areas.  Did you really think we wouldn't notice the discrepancy?


Good point, keiths.  However, I think that DaveTard found some people who don't notice the discrepancy, or at least have such low standards that they don't care when they do notice what a Tard he is.

It's the downfall of ID, however.  Not only do IDists have a whole lot of blatant creationists trying to sneak ID as "science" into the schools, people like Dembski are too ignorant, and perhaps too stupid, not to use the Tard, Dave, to represent his own scientific knowledge.

DaveTard seems to know very little beyond SciAm, and he understands it quite poorly.  SciAm doesn't make the mistakes about entropy and fundamental forces that DaveTard does.  Furthermore, even an electrical engineer should be smarter about entropy than ignorance DaveTard demonstrates.

But he probably knows as much or more science than Dembski does.  DaveTard has probably given money to ID causes, brags incessantly about his "intelligence" while adhering to the tardscience of ID, and has shown a marked capacity for character assassination and dishonesty that ingratiates him to Dembski.  How really hypocritical is it for Dembski to "spank" DaveTard for doing the only thing he has ever been able to do, attack people without regard for the truth?  

I rather suspect that the person prompting Dembski's "spanking" of the tards was actually far more disturbed at the stupidity and ineffectiveness of DaveTard's attacks, than that they occurred and were generally based upon lies and/or distortions.  Unfortunately for the ID movement, DaveTard is too ignorant/stupid to effectively draw blood, other than in the eyes of the dolts.  But how would Dembski be able to judge DaveTard's scientific competence.

Of course the Tard's been attacking people with about the same viciousness and lack of regard for truth as usual (Ken Miller especially), indicating that Dembski is willing to use DaveTard's poor talents.  I do think, however, that he has been disappointed in Dave's inability to effectively project scientific knowledge beyond the cretins who believe ID.  

Yet I don't think that Dembski has any notion of what a poser (poseur, whatever) DaveTard is, since bragging, coupled with the acceptance of Dembski's brilliance, have to suffice for Dembski's judgment of the Tard's scientific abilities.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,06:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2006,09:14)
Speaking of ‘not being consistent’:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/445#comment-11687

 
Quote


Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB’s in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.
Comment by DaveScot — November 1, 2005 @ 12:22 pm


“Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery” – But Davetard, Honey, aren’t you agnostic? So presumably you too “hold no moral absolutes” and so “there’s no telling what you’ll do”.

Twat.

I'm sorry, but isn't our Dave being consistent here?  For once.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,07:04   

Quote

Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery.


DT must be referring to that new half-man/half-monkey creature they wrote about in Scientific American.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,07:26   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2006,10:51)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2006,05:52)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2006,21:10)
     
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 07 2006,06:05)
If Dave thought she wasn't for real he would have banned her in a second.

             
Quote
P.S. My wife’s name is Janie. She is a French teacher. We met in French classes in college 30 years ago. “Belle” is the French word for beautiful, so JanieBelle has a special place in my heart.


er...


As my daughter might say,

Janie and DaveTard in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!!!



That little valentine was actually from GilDodgen, not DaveTard.

Great. Ruin my day, why don't you? :angry:


Arden,

If it's any consolation, I heard a rumor that JanieBelle is rumored to be DaveTard's alleged illegitimate daughter.  Of course these are only rumors, so I can't be held accountable for repeating them.

Stop the ACLU!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,07:39   

Sal's YEC post, quoted above, is simply breathtaking in its ignorance...

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,08:17   

Raving lunatics?  Cool.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1301#comment-47171

Quote
Question 2: If code can be written to infer intent then why can’t code be written to infer design since design and intent are inseperably linked?

Question 3: How is this science different than the “non-science” of design detection? I don’t see any difference.

These are the 2 questions I want PZ Myers and the raving lunatics at the Panda’s Thumb to answer. I know they read this blog so let’s see if they can provide some coherent answers. Not holding my breath though.

Comment by Lurker — July 8, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

So, my counter question is that if design and intent are inseparably linked, how can ID detect design not only without intention, but with intention and design completely separated?  Isn't that the point that we've been making for years now, that it's not enough to say it's designed without making any inferences about the designer?  That in cases of forensics that we already know who the designer is, so we are able to make certain assumptions, but that they are trying to decouple the two and that is why one is science and the other isn't?  That whole post smacks of cognitive dissonance.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,08:40   

Quote
 
Question 2: If code can be written to infer intent then why can’t code be written to infer design since design and intent are inseperably linked?

Question 3: How is this science different than the “non-science” of design detection? I don’t see any difference.


Intent and design are not inseparably linked, since intent need not produce "design".  

Beyond that, Lurker predicates his question on a false claim that IDists make, that design detection is ruled out by "ruling science".  Of course it isn't.  It's just that we insist on sound criteria for detection of design, such as evidence for rational design as opposed to evolutionary development.  Other criteria may be that we know what sorts of things certain organisms "design".

Believe me, no one is proposing that we can discover the intent of God using science.  We can infer the intent of other humans, and possibly of animals, but we cannot infer the intent of anything that makes organisms appear to have evolved.  Perhaps we might even be able to make some inferences about alien design, if it appears to have been done according to human aims and capabilities.  But if we are supposed to infer design and intent of something that "designs" in ways that we do not, we are not capable of inferring either intent or design in such a case.

Of course the real problem with these IDiots is that they think that we rule out inferring intent and/or design based on the fact that we don't find design or intent in organisms (aside from our genetic manipulations).  Because they dogmatically insist that life was designed, and we deny it, they fail to recognize why it is that we believe that life evolved and was not designed.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,13:54   

From early 2002:

Quote

The second objection that Dembski addresses is that "design" can explain everything, and thus explains nothing. Dembski's response is that critics using this objection confuse and conflate "intentionality" with "design". This rebuttal boils down to a rather cheap literalism concerning the construction of the objection. Because "design" does not apply to "everything", though "intentionality" might, Dembski says that the critics have hit the wrong target. The problem with such a rebuttal is that it leaves the suitably restated underlying criticism completely untouched. "Design" can be used as an explanation for events where current knowledge fails, without particular independent evidence that "design" actually applies, and thus tells us no more than that current knowledge fails to provide a compelling explanation.

Dembski's discussion of "intentionality" simply seeks to deploy "intentionality" as a ready scapegoat for "design"'s failings. But something that Dembski mentions along the way deserves attention. "Design" implies "intentionality", though the obverse is not true. This is simply left lying. Yet quite a lot of argument goes on in philosophical circles concerning how one can objectively infer "intentionality" in another agent. This discussion can be exceedingly contentious in the field of animal cognition. Dembski has, apparently incidentally, produced a logical framework that claims to be able to produce just such a result, but appears not to wish to promote its use in the community that could best put it to use. We often know that an agent has acted. If we then use Dembski's Explanatory Filter to yield "design" for some event, then we also obtain an argument for a particular intention (the one underlying the specification used) on the part of the agent. This represents a legitimate possible use of Dembski's framework within the scientific community, but we do not see Dembski or other ID proponents attempting to push this technology where it might do some good.

(Source)


Since that time, of course, i've revised my opinion of the potential legitimate utility of Dembski's framework downward.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,14:39   

Quote
Unlike Ken or Keith Miller, Collins appears to be pretty clearly saying that humans, and the genetic code, were intended (and to be designed is simply to be the actualized object of an intention). Furthermore, he seems to be saying that this is something he has rationally concluded from observing the genetic code. Given that, it’s not clear what his real difference with ID is.
-Deuce on uncommondescent


Wow...all i can say is wow.
Now wait, Im not about to attack this person.  He actually brings up a very important point.  50-80% of ID supporters believe that ID is simply a claim that life was "designed" or intended.  Obviously any person of a theistic persuasion is going to hold the belief that existence is intended.
Deuce, like most ID supporters, doesn't see why Collins isnt an ID supporter.  The fact of the matter is, THEY ARE ID SUPPORTERS.  Ken Miller, Collins, ME...all ID believers.

DaveTard, Dembski, Behe are not believers in ID.
They think they have "proven" ID.
I just wish people could ignore the pre-installed hostility that exists with this topic...and realize that the scientific community isn't pissed because these guys believe in God.  The scientific community is pissed because these people have decided that they have proven something...which they havent even begun to prove.

BTW...Christians have become evil.  When did Christians start compromising their morality for political power?
Creationists supporting these guys because it will begin a dialogue?
Christians supporting the conservative right...despite some obviously UNCHRISTIAN thinking?
Its really sad.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,16:14   

Quote

If it's any consolation, I heard a rumor that JanieBelle is rumored to be DaveTard's alleged illegitimate daughter.  Of course these are only rumors, so I can't be held accountable for repeating them.


Sure, I'm Janie's father. By your MOTHER, homo.

BTW, Keith, what is your full name, address and phone number? I want to exercise my first amendment right to free speech and write about it. Got a problem with that? -dt
:angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,16:33   

Quote (PuckSR @ July 10 2006,19:39)
When did Christians start compromising their morality for political power?

It began with Nixon's "Southern Strategy".  The fundies then tried to hitch a ride with Carter (the first prez to openly talk about being "born again"), but he turned out to, uh, not be the sort of guy they were looking for.  Reagan was right up their alley, though.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,16:43   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 10 2006,21:33)
 
Quote (PuckSR @ July 10 2006,19:39)
When did Christians start compromising their morality for political power?

It began with Nixon's "Southern Strategy".  The fundies then tried to hitch a ride with Carter (the first prez to openly talk about being "born again"), but he turned out to, uh, not be the sort of guy they were looking for.  Reagan was right up their alley, though.

So much so that they all think he was a Nice Christian Family Man even tho he was divorced and went to church perhaps once a year. American fundies are like that -- kiss their asses and mouth their platitudes and they'll overlook anything you do in your personal life.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,17:04   

well being forgiving would actually seem to be Christian
however, politically supporting the side that promotes violence seems very unChristian
Supporting oppression and intolerance also seem very UnChristian

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,17:07   

Quote (PuckSR @ July 10 2006,22:04)
well being forgiving would actually seem to be Christian

It's not 'forgiving', more like 'ignoring'. And they don't forgive it when someone who doesn't jump thru their political hoops does it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,18:06   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,21:43)
American fundies are like that -- kiss their asses and mouth their platitudes and they'll overlook anything you do in your personal life.

Well as long as you're not too public about it.  They were apparently slobbering all over Janiebelle right up until she was rumored to have announced she was sweating up the sheets with an allegedly girl Marine.

They're supposedly hypocritical bastards in theory who don't even believe their own hypothetical bullshit.  They won't rest until they allegedly run the world as apparent dictators.

Janie got banned from Uncommon Descent

Near as I can tell, DaveTard just don't like girls.  Have you read her stuff?  I think my wife's getting a little jealous...

:D

Takes one to know one, homo.  Hey, wait.  ####. Now I have to ban myself.- dt

(edited to add appropriate disclaimer words to avoid lawsuits and the Wrath of Tard)

:D

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,18:16   

Dave doesn't want to catch gayness - it erodes traditional 'intelligently designed' marrige, dotchaknow.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,18:20   

You can catch a "lack of sexual preference"?  Oh man I'm gonna force my wife to read the whole blog.

:D

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,20:14   

wait for the spin..

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,71173-0.html?tw=wn_index_6

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,20:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 10 2006,23:06)
[quote=Arden Chatfield,July 10 2006,21:43]Near as I can tell, DaveTard just don't like girls.   :D

Doesn't he claim to be married? Anyone ever seen a picture of the wife?

If not, we should exercise DaveTard's beloved First Amendment right of free speech, find a picture of her, and have lots of free and frank speech about her.  ;)

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,20:23   

Quote
Richardthughes   Posted on July 11 2006,01:14wait for the spin..

[URL=http://wired.com/news/technology/0,71173-0.html?tw=wn_index_6


Well, since we can obviously design things based on nature, nature was obviously designed by intelligence that knew I wanted new drug delivery methods.  Easy.

then move next door to a crack house, 'cause you're outta here, homo. -dt

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,21:02   

Quote (Wonderpants @ July 11 2006,01:18)
[quote=Lou FCD,July 10 2006,23:06]
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,21:43)
Near as I can tell, DaveTard just don't like girls.   :D

Doesn't he claim to be married? Anyone ever seen a picture of the wife?

If not, we should exercise DaveTard's beloved First Amendment right of free speech, find a picture of her, and have lots of free and frank speech about her.  ;)

Davetard has the hots for Mann Coulter.. the 'lucky Dawg'.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,01:24   

Quote (blipey @ July 11 2006,01:23)
Quote
Richardthughes   Posted on July 11 2006,01:14wait for the spin..

[URL=http://wired.com/news/technology/0,71173-0.html?tw=wn_index_6


Well, since we can obviously design things based on nature, nature was obviously designed by intelligence that knew I wanted new drug delivery methods.  Easy.

then move next door to a crack house, 'cause you're outta here, homo. -dt

Plus, anything that we can reverse engineer means that it was engineered in the first place.  So, since we can use these critters, that means they were designed.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,01:26   

Quote
The scientific community is pissed because these people have decided that they have proven something...which they havent even begun to prove.
I think thats exactly right. Most ID supporters claim to be such because apparently scientists say that they can conclusively prove all of evolution proceeded unplanned and unguided, so no need for God. This is what seems to piss most of them off, and of course isn't true. So when scientists get annoyed at ID, most ID supporters think it's because of that. Whereas it's actually because the main ID proponents say they can conclusively prove intelligence was involved.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,01:30   

I had to explain at length to someone who claimed to be intelligent and also against ID, that scientists did not object to the teaching of ID in schools because teaching something that contradicted current scientific thought was immoral, but because lying is immoral.  It took some time.  

Theres a lot of confused thinking about this issue.  
Obviously.

Edited to put "laying" to "Lying".

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,01:50   

Quote (guthrie @ July 11 2006,06:30)
because laying is immoral.

Oh well, I guess I'm going to he11. :D

You might want to adjust that.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]