Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 400 401 402 403 404 [405] 406 407 408 409 410 ... >

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2011,18:49    Quote (dvunkannon @ April 19 2011,17:20) Page 404 and not even one "Not Found" joke? I noticed that too... but thought it would be too lame to mention.... On the bright side if this post makes the the page fold to 405... it will not be found on the page not found page  :p -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2011,19:04    Freedom is the freedom to say that 202 + 202 = 404... ...except when Big Designer Brother says that it is 505... (Giving you wags another chance! ) (And, welp, you guys could use your edit buttons on page 404, yanno! -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 19 2011,23:14    Quote (paragwinn @ April 19 2011,16:46)   Quote (CeilingCat @ April 19 2011,05:27) It has two replies so far, one from Ilion, who is not happy about something or other (who cares?) and one from paragwinn making a snarky point about a couple of recent silent banninations. snarky? i didnt mean to come off that way. I was trying to act innocent, just trying to find out where things stand. It's like Argentina's "Dirty War" with the "Disappeared Ones" at UD. It wasn't the way you phrased it that was snarky, it's just that ANY mention of the bannination policy or people who have recently been disappeared is considered snark by those who misrule UD.   Good job!

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,03:14    crossposted from UD: Quote StephenB @ 38: "I agree that my remarks @18 were intemperate and will, therefore, discipline myself by retiring from the thread." Well said. That's probably the same kind of discipline that KL and idcurious exercised in light of their silence to date. snark fully intended -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,03:44    James Grover introduces the concept of introspection to UD:     Quote I noted that there never seems to be any substantive criticism of ID hypotheses from pro-ID observers     Quote Don’t you consider this odd? How can science be done in the absence of substantive disagreement or constant, unwavering acquiescence? [corrected to "in the absence of substantive disagreement or in a state of constant, unwavering acquiescence?” in his next comment - paragwinn] StephenB performs a magic trick in the style of Bullwinkle the Moose:        "Hey, James, watch me pull a mountain of conclusions out of my ass. Let me roll up my sleeve...Presto!"   Quote More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID’s methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy. It's a slow news day. -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,05:58    My post on the Geosciences thread appeared after two days. So I posted this, and cross posted to the most recent thread: KL 04/20/2011 4:57 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. OK, that’s a start-2 days in moderation, although my last post on the thread WITH MY NAME ON IT has been in moderation for 5 days and counting. With this moderation policy my question is held until the conversation moves on before appearing, so I don’t get an answer. I will ask again: Explain the fossil record for hominids (ages, features, distribution) using, as another poster said, the paradigm of ID. If ID is to be treated as science, it must explain the existing evidence (and new evidence) better than evolution.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,06:10    Every once in a while you read something on UD that brings a smile to your face.  This is from Vincent Fleury, a French physicist who wrote a paper on bodily forms and development.  P.Z. Myers reviewed it harshly under the title of An Ontogeny of Toilet Drain Behavior on June 17, 2009. Susan Mazu ... excuse me, New Zealand Journalist Suzan Mazur just brought it to the attention of Denyse who writes about it here. Fleury makes this observation to N.Z.J. Susan that brought a chuckle to me, considering where it is published:         Quote Freedom of speech is one thing, but it is extremely insane to open the microphone to crazy people. Well, Vince, Uncommon Descent specializes in just that, you wild and crazy person, you.

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,08:24    Posted this. See how long it takes to show up. 5 KL 04/20/2011 7:25 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. That’s not addressing the original claim, Joseph. The claim is that the explanations by physical and paleo-anthropologists is WRONG. So, if ID is the new paradigm, use it. Use it to explain the features, ages and distribution of the fossils. That’s what scientific theories are for. The authors here made these claims, essentially dismissing the work of my spouse and colleague. They made the claim, so they need to support it. Maybe you want to give it a go? No one else here seems to want to. link

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,08:56    I predict this thread has enormous potential for tard.  The OP and Joseph have already have put foot to mouth in appearing to assign motivation to the 'Designer'.  Heinrich appears to be having fun. Collin     Quote I think that the predictions in the paleontology section are more favorable to a creationist perspective than ID necessarily. I mean, ID can predict design in nature, but ID would be okay with gradualism so long as there is evidence of design in nature (like the bacterial flagellum). Having said that, I totally endorse those predictions because I am a creationist. Which one of you is Collin again? -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,09:08    [quote=paragwinn,April 20 2011,03:44][/quote] Quote Quote More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID’s methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy. "Palsy walsy"?? That's a new one for me. Had to go and look that up. Of course, I originally mispronounced when I read it. I thought it would sound like paulsy-wallsy. Then I realized it was pronounced powlsy-wowsly. Makes much more sense now. ...speaking of slow news days... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,09:26    Quote (Freddie @ April 20 2011,08:56) I predict this thread has enormous potential for tard. To this point, what does this from the Mr. Wells mean:   Quote ID predicts an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics. I'm really not being rhetorical here (though the short answer - Wells is making crap up is highly likely) - I'm actually asking whether anyone here can explain to me the creationist perspective that there should be more (relative to what?) fine-tune indicating parameters.  I genuinely don't know what Well's thinks he's getting at there. I do realize this isn't a very well-defined prediction from a scientific perspective, which may be why I'm having such difficulty with it. Perhaps if Wells went to the trouble of actually laying out an hypothesis that actually...you know...explained the concept of fine-tuning as it pertains to ID, I'd be less confused. But I digress... ---- ETA Apparently I just need to read a bit down the list as my question was answered: Quote Myname: This is an interesting list but imho has each item at least one of the following problems: 1) The prediction is to vague to be tested. 2) It is a postdiction meaning a prediction after the fact. 3) The prediction is the same as what you would expect form the ToE thus the prediction is not discriminatory. 4) It is unclear how you got that prediction. Nevermiiiiinnd... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,11:46    Quote (Robin @ April 20 2011,09:08)   Quote (paragwinn @ April 20 2011,03:44)     Quote     Quote More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID’s methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy. "Palsy walsy"?? That's a new one for me. Had to go and look that up. Of course, I originally mispronounced when I read it. I thought it would sound like paulsy-wallsy. Then I realized it was pronounced powlsy-wowsly. Makes much more sense now. ...speaking of slow news days... In the good old days (before the Norman Conquest), English actually had an unambiguous way to spell the vowel sound in the word "pal": æ I blame the French for screwing this up. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,11:50    Quote (noncarborundum @ April 20 2011,09:46) I blame the French for screwing this up. Words to live by. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,12:41    Has anyone been saving versions of the various Mathgrrl threads over at UD?  A quick glance at the "Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined?" post shows evidence of a wholesale whitewashing of the discussion. Note this comment: Quote 248 James Grover 04/16/2011 1:51 pm Sorry, I messed up the quote tags in 275. My comment on Scott’s observation begins with “An illustration:” The comment, in and of itself, isn't all that interesting. Merely a commenter noting that he messed up formating on his previous comment and giving folks enough information so that they can discern where James' commentary begins.   What is interesting here is that he referred to that comment as number 275, but it is currently numbered 247.  Somewhere along the line, 28 comments have been deleted. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,13:00    Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2011,17:50) Quote (noncarborundum @ April 20 2011,09:46) I blame the French for screwing this up. Words to live by. Hey!!! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!? It should read "I blame the French for screwing everything up!" Get your straights fact! ETA: This daily peanut-gallery rant provided by the "See if I give a fuck" Foundation. -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,13:03    Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2011,10:41) Has anyone been saving versions of the various Mathgrrl threads over at UD?  A quick glance at the "Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined?" post shows evidence of a wholesale whitewashing of the discussion. Note this comment:     Quote 248 James Grover 04/16/2011 1:51 pm Sorry, I messed up the quote tags in 275. My comment on Scott’s observation begins with “An illustration:” The comment, in and of itself, isn't all that interesting. Merely a commenter noting that he messed up formating on his previous comment and giving folks enough information so that they can discern where James' commentary begins.   What is interesting here is that he referred to that comment as number 275, but it is currently numbered 247.  Somewhere along the line, 28 comments have been deleted. idcurious is an unperson.  After James Grover's note, several entries reply to IDC's comments, but the comments themselves have gone. edit: as discussed later in the thread: Quote 288 critter 04/18/2011 5:03 pm I do wish the moderators would simply announce when & why a poster was banned. 289 Joseph 04/18/2011 5:34 pm Perhaps curiousity killed the idcurious… -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,13:30    Quote (carlsonjok @ April 20 2011,12:41) Has anyone been saving versions of the various Mathgrrl threads over at UD?  A quick glance at the "Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined?" post shows evidence of a wholesale whitewashing of the discussion. Note this comment:       Quote 248 James Grover 04/16/2011 1:51 pm Sorry, I messed up the quote tags in 275. My comment on Scott’s observation begins with “An illustration:” The comment, in and of itself, isn't all that interesting. Merely a commenter noting that he messed up formating on his previous comment and giving folks enough information so that they can discern where James' commentary begins.   What is interesting here is that he referred to that comment as number 275, but it is currently numbered 247.  Somewhere along the line, 28 comments have been deleted. PTET in his wisdom has archived the thread up to his banning here: Mathgrrl thread A quick comparison shows that the mismatch starts at around post 210.  It looks like it is much of the 'Electricity Hates Water' discussion that has been excised. In a similar vein KF defends and sucks up to JoeG (sorry for that picture) frequently (cf. KFs rationalization that JoeG apologized and corrected his behaviour when idcurious 'doubled-down' - when the reality is plainly there for all to see in black and white).  You have to believe he has looked at Joe's blog and seen how Joe spews his expletive-ridden rants there, but the desire to maintain the big tent must be stronger than the revulsion he undoubtedly must feel at having to be kissin' cousins with him all day long.   I mean, can you really see Mr Straight-and-Narrow GEM with his old-style Dickensian speech really wanting to get within 1000 miles of Joe outside of the blogosphere?  Perhaps Joe is a necessary evil that must just be endured when fighting the good fight.  It's a test of his faith, perhaps.  Weird. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,13:36    Makes me wonder what will happen to ole Joe once the evil Darwinists (whoever they are) are defeated. Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution.  So he's going to either change his tune to true belief in ID or he's going to be out on his keister so fast it'll make the ticks in his watermelon spin. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,13:46    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,13:36) Makes me wonder what will happen to ole Joe once the evil Darwinists (whoever they are) are defeated. Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution.  So he's going to either change his tune to true belief in ID or he's going to be out on his keister so fast it'll make the ticks in his watermelon spin. Of course, there are additional possibilities for handling the unbelievers when such a theocracy comes into power.   Maybe they could invent some appropriate (and yet ironic) ending involving water and electricity. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,14:11    Quote (Freddie @ April 20 2011,11:46) Maybe they could invent some appropriate (and yet ironic) ending involving water and electricity. Theocrat: "Let him be covered in the juice of the watermelon, and leave him for the ticks." Lackey: "Will that even work?" Theocrat: "SILENCE! Or do you wish to share his fate?" Lackey: "Well, see that's kinda my whole poi..." Theocrat:  *glares* Lackey:  "Nevermind. Watermelon and ticks it is." -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,14:34    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,11:36) Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution. No, he doesn't.  He just says that when backed into a corner.  It's his way of avoiding answering the question, especially on UD, where his usual devastating riposte of "Asshole!" is frowned upon. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:08    Has anyone ever asked why the designing agency can't be evolution? If there is no information about the designer and no interest in the designer, then what difference does it make if the designer is god or natural selection? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:10    Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2011,14:34) Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,11:36) Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution. No, he doesn't.  He just says that when backed into a corner.  It's his way of avoiding answering the question, especially on UD, where his usual devastating riposte of "Asshole!" is frowned upon. Oh yeah, I know.  But it's what he actually says, which means he's lying and playing to his audience instead of actually thinking.  He's too far gone for the latter I'm afraid. I think it's actually funny that these guys don't understand that we actually want to do experiments in ID, if only they'll tell us what it is.  With a fixed definition and math, then anyone could answer the question 'Is ID real' for once and for all... oh wait... nevermind. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:19    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,15:08) Has anyone ever asked why the designing agency can't be evolution? Yes, about 4 years ago.  Read this Panda's Thumb article and follow the links.   Quote If there is no information about the designer and no interest in the designer, then what difference does it make if the designer is god or natural selection? You are really asking that question?  Isn't the difference obvious? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:21    yeah, 'bout what I thought. Hmmm... anyone try running a series of 500 random numbers through the CSI thingy and then reporting the results.  It would be a false positive of design. I know, it doesn't actually matter.  I'm trying to contribute. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:26    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,13:10) Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2011,14:34)   Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,11:36) Remember, Joe thinks ID is not anti-evolution. No, he doesn't.  He just says that when backed into a corner.  It's his way of avoiding answering the question, especially on UD, where his usual devastating riposte of "Asshole!" is frowned upon. Oh yeah, I know.  But it's what he actually says, which means he's lying and playing to his audience instead of actually thinking.  He's too far gone for the latter I'm afraid. Adding to the hilarity, he's actually right, if we're talking about public-consumption, someone-unknown-did-something-unknown-in-an-unknown-manner-for-unknown-reasons ID.  That's compatible with anything. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:27    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,15:21) I know, it doesn't actually matter.  I'm trying to contribute. Oh, you are doing just fine.  Don't get all down about locking horns with that knucklehead over at Curmy's.  I've gone round and round with him before. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,15:32    Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2011,13:21) yeah, 'bout what I thought. Hmmm... anyone try running a series of 500 random numbers through the CSI thingy and then reporting the results.  It would be a false positive of design. I know, it doesn't actually matter.  I'm trying to contribute. But you'd have to design the process of running the random numbers through the CSI thingy.  Therefore Jesus. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,16:16    I wuz thinking (I know, I know, but I was using my special ID beanie) that if UD didn't exist we would have to invent one .... Not just for the LULZ but as a sort of padded room for the likes of UDders (KF, Joseph, BA^77, O'Leary, etc...) Think of all the advantages that UD provides: * We don't have to pay for it. * With the volume of pure unadulterated TARD (adulterated tard is too disgusting to contemplate) being put out by the likes of KF and company it is unlikely that they ever have the time to even get out of the hose (or house)... let alone take a shower. It keeps them off the streets. * Hardly anyone refers to UD for any support for ID. Most of the fundies I see on other sites use AiG, and sometimes the DI. * As I think someone has already mentioned perhaps the moderation policy is not such a bad idea. It protects people like Joseph from getting too worked up. (I wonder who moderates Joe Gs site?) Anyhow... I am sure you guys have thought of all this before... I am just too lazy to search for it. What made me think of it was watching the old "Riley: Ace of Spies" series (got the whole set on DVD) and "the Trust" set up by the Soviets to trap anti-Soviets. If it wasn't registered to Bill Dembski the whole site would be the ultimate sock. It would have to be intelligently designed though. Anyhooo... ::takes off ID beanie:: I should go to work and do scienz. -DU- ETA: Fix a typo but I kinda liked it.. so I left it. -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 20 2011,16:25    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 20 2011,19:00) Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2011,17:50)   Quote (noncarborundum @ April 20 2011,09:46) I blame the French for screwing this up. Words to live by. Hey!!! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!? It should read "I blame the French for screwing everything up!" Get your straights fact! ETA: This daily peanut-gallery rant provided by the "See if I give a fuck" Foundation. Wait. I thought everything was the fault of the British. After all, we're still the villains of Hollywood, typically. Louis P.S. Is the "See if I give a fuck" Foundation twinned with the DILIGAF* Corporation? *Do I look like I give a fuck. -------------- Bye.

Pages: (501) < ... 400 401 402 403 404 [405] 406 407 408 409 410 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard