RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Steve Gould and Project Steve, Would he have signed on?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,19:10   

"The Unbalanced Centrifuge" is going on about a "scandal" over NCSE's "Project Steve". A fellow named Stuart Pivar is trying to invoke Stephen Jay Gould's ghost to do Pivar's bidding, making claims such as that Gould never attributed any creative power to natural selection. A plethora of Gould quotes have been quoted, and essays cited, to show that Pivar is pretty completely ignorant of Gould's work.

One thing that I haven't seen noted elsewhere is that Gould, while living, took an extremely proprietary stance towards his prose. He didn't let mere editors sully his words. Why we should simply accept that Gould, dead, would contemplate having Stuart Pivar do his own hack edit job is beyond me. I'm sure that Gould raised more than a couple of drinks with Richard Milner, editor at Natural History magazine for many years during Gould's tenure as columnist there. Yet Gould didn't privilege Milner by letting him re-arrange or, heaven forbid, change his words around. But "The Unbalanced Centrifuge"'s case depends upon trusting Pivar's unsubstantiated retelling of Gould's stances over Gould's own unmeddled-with words. This also makes hash of the tale that Gould was somehow intimidated by "the establishment" into modifying what he would say in print. That's hogwash, pure and simple. Gould was one of the least conformist commentators around.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,19:20   

Here are some of the comments from over at "The Unbalanced Centrifuge":

Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:20:59 PM, Hari Narayan Singh said...

   "Well, I will keep you posted. I commend Pivar for raising this issue. The dead are helpless when it comes to their reputation. Their friends must speak for them."

   In Gould's case, why don't we let his own ideas speak for him? Adding punctuated equilibrium to evolutionary theory produces a model that still relies heavily on natural selection. Punctuated equilibrium says that the rate of change in a species will remain relatively static for long periods, and change relatively rapidly during periods of dramatic environmental change or an isolation of part of a population. In the first case, organisms in the species will be selected for traits that are better suited to the new environment, and perhaps change relatively quickly.

   The second case is sligthly different. A small segment of a larger population, the splinter group would have less genetic diversity to dilute new changes, and therefore new mutations would have a large effect. Still, harmful changes will be weeded out by natural selection, and new beneficial mutations will be fixed in the population. This is a structuralist argument in that the DNA you start out with determines what effect natural selection will have on it. Evolutionists have never denied this; even before darwin, paleontologists made morphological analogies with species in successive strata. Just because it might be more adaptive for a wing to form free of the constraints imposed by a hand-like structural ancestor doesn't mean it can. Selection works with what it has available. But it is essential in species change in that it can fix new traits in a population. A new trait that is highly beneficial will prosper and come to dominate a population. Without selection it would be expressed by a tiny minority, since specific mutations occur in individuals; if the individual doesn' reproduce more than others, its trait will eventually die out.

   We need to dispose with these two tired caricatures: a Gould who is purely structuralist and doesn't recognize the importance of natural selection, and other evolutionary bioliogists who see evolution as completely selection-driven, without regard to the gene pools of populations. It's kind of like people who think that there is a controversy over whether "nature" or "nurture" is true. It's both, people.
     


Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:46:56 PM, Hari Narayan Singh said...

   After my first comment, it still said "0 comments." Maybe this one will register.
     


Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:55:55 PM, Pat Hayes said...

   Here's Gould's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas, available online here at http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/mva_tt_p_gould.html.

   Now it may be that Gould has changed his mind now that he is dead. We can't be sure of that. Nevertheless, when he was still with us and acting as the scourge of creationists everywhere -- intelligent design wasn't even a glint in the creationists eyes back then -- here's what he had to say:

   Q: In terms of the evidence, the physical evidence we have observed, you do mention in this article The Peppered Moths, which has been referred to before in this courtroom. Now I want to see if I understand how you view this. Did these moths change color?

   A: Evolution changes gene frequencies within populations. What happened in the case of the peppered moths is that before industrial soot blackened the trees around Manchester, that the moths which exist in two different forms, depending on which state of the gene they have, basically peppered and black, with very few black ones, almost all the moths in the population were peppered, when industrial soot blackened the trees in England, there was very strong selection for the first time against peppered moths, which had been virtually invisible against the lighter trees. And there was then for the first time an advantage to the black moths, as we call them, black moths, a few of them. And within fifty years the population consisted almost entirely of black moths, and that's natural selection.

   Q: But did the peppered moths reproduce into black moths?

   A: No. What happened was what the theory of natural selection predicts would happen, namely, that from a spectrum of variability, which included the peppered moths and black moths, the gene frequencies changed, indeed, the gene from black moths — the gene that produces black colors, excuse me, increased markedly and frequently within the population until virtually all moths were black. [Emphasis added, RSR]

   From pages 618-619 of the transcript.

   This dose of reality based commentary courtesy of Red State Rabble.
     


Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:25:58 PM, Kevin W. Parker said...

   "Natural selection, an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications, is surely a major cause of evolution, as validated in theory and demonstrated by countless experiments."

   - Steven Jay Gould, Darwinian Fundamentalism
     


Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:46:37 PM, Hari Narayan Singh said...

   Dude, watch the language, anonymous. I think your post is going to be deleted soon. Are you sure Pivar was trying to "stomp" Gould's reputation? It could very well be that he just doesn't understand Steve's writings.
     



Quote

At Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:45:09 PM, Mike Walker said...

   "Natural selection, an immensely powerful idea with radical philosophical implications, is surely a major cause of evolution, as validated in theory and demonstrated by countless experiments." SJG.

   Nice try Denise. And since Kevin was so kind to do the minimal amount of legwork necessary to refute Mr. Pivar's ridiculous claims (in Gould's own words, no less) perhaps it's time to rethink your accusations.

   A gracious retraction would do you the power of good, but then, I'm not holding my breath...
     


Quote

At Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:15:24 AM, Fred said...

   Denyse, rather than quoting someone who *claims* to know what Gould believed, why not crack open a book or do a Google search and find out for yourself? Gould was a total believer in natural selection.

   It is YOU who seem determined to miss the point, not Eugenie Scott.

   One thing is for sure: Stephen Jay Gould was a much better scientist than you are a journalist. He at least did some research.

   PS: You decide how much you can trust Pivar, since he's plugging a book that "presents a new paradigm of evolution" and goes against Gould's work.

   PPS: Did I mention you're not much of a journalist?
     


Quote

At Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:02:45 AM, Hari Narayan Singh said...

   No need for personal attacks.
     


Quote

At Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:51:58 AM, Anonymous said...

   My name is Dave Mullenix. I don't want to post anonymously, but this blog's software won't take any ID I give it. I want to say this: there IS a need for at least minimally responsible journalism on this blog. Steven J. Gould was one of the most prolific science writers who ever lived. Statements by Gould on the importance of natural selection are thick on the ground - look at how easily people were able to find and post them on this blog, Panda's Thumb and probably other places as well. It would have been RESPONSIBLE journalism if Ms. O'Leary had taken the minimal effort to pick up a few of Gould's books and read them before rushing to publish the unsupported statements of a man whose only claim of authority is that he had once been a friend of Gould. In fact, she wouldn't have had to even read a book. She could have found statements by Gould contradicting his "friend" with a Google search, as others have already done.

   Add this faux pas to the recent case where she rushed the unsupported word of a student into print without bothering to ask for the names of the professors he slandered and contacting them to get their side of the story and the credibility of this blog has dropped to less than zero.
     


Quote

At Wednesday, October 26, 2005 7:38:37 AM, Ed Darrell said...

   What's the next headline here? "Jesus would have denied salvation?" "Mohammed would have condemned polygamy?" "Buddha would have disowned meditation?" "Washington would have favored reannexation to Britain?"

   "O'Leary recants ID?"


     
Quote

At Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:33:59 PM, Gary Telles said...

   Having been a devoted reader of Stephen Jay Gould's essays in Natural History for many years, as well as of his popular books, my only comment is that the absolute absence of any journalistic integrity on your part, Ms. O'Leary, is clearly evidenced by your unwillingness to bestir your lazy posterior to do the SLIGHTEST amount of research on how Gould actually viewed Natural Selection. As you can see, the result is that you and this "chemical engineer friend Pivar" have repeatedly and deservedly had your irresponsible, foolish heads handed to you. Thus ends your "scandal".
   Gary Telles


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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2005,04:47   

More comments from "The Unbalanced Centrifuge":

Quote


Peter Wayne said...

   Read this and stop spreading vile nonsense :-)

   http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/on_the_beach_wi.html



Quote


   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:13:06 AM
MrDarwin said...

   Denyse, a very important question for you, as a journalist, is why we should accept anybody's claims about what Gould believed or did not believe when Gould explained his ideas and beliefs at great length in writing, over and over, and these claims seem to contradict Gould's own writings? Who are we to believe, Gould himself or somebody claiming to speak on his behalf?

   This question cuts to the very heart of your integrity as a journalist. Your hostility towards "Darwinism" (whatever that means, since you so often throw the word around without defining it, but evolutionary biology is not nearly as monolithic as you seem to think, nor does it slavishly follow Darwin's ideas) and your blind open-mindedness toward "intelligent design" have seriously undermined your objectivity as a journalist.



Quote


   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:20:48 AM
Fred said...

   Denyse, you still insist on not lifting a finger to research the Stuart Pivar claim, eh? What would Jesus do?



Quote


   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:46:47 AM
Richard Gordon said...

   Dear Denyse,
   I wrote you a few days ago, at Stuart Pivar’s request, to oleary@sympatico.ca, but received no reply. I’m at [EMAIL=GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca.]GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca.[/EMAIL]

   Since you suggested that a conference on structuralism is a vague rumor, let me just say that Stuart and I are indeed considering organizing such, perhaps under my suggested title:

   Digital Burgess II, Workshop on Structuralism & Emergence: What Causes Complex Design in Life?

   I did not know Gould personally, though while he was still alive I critiqued some of his ideas in:

   Gordon, R. (1999). The Hierarchical Genome and Differentiation Waves: Novel Unification of Development, Genetics and Evolution, Singapore: World Scientific and London: Imperial College Press, 2 vols., 1836p. http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/lifesci/2755.html

   where I put forward my own ideas on the origin of form. However, I am open to other hypotheses. Thanks.
   Yours, -Dick Gordon



Quote


   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:47:28 AM
Denyse O'Leary
Denyse O'Leary said...

   Actually, you will find next time you check your box, Dick, that I have replied. I am a bit behind in personal e-mail. cheers, Denyse

   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:40:12 PM
Andrea Bottaro said...

   I am sorry, but this is too much.

   In the space of 24 hours, Mr. Pivar has gone from:
   "Every statement SJG ever made rejects natural selection, and none can be found in its support. "
   to:
   "Steve could not shoot his mouth off with the public hearing that there is no explanation for design. you could not and still cannot speak against natural selection in the academic situation without censorship"
   So, which one is it? Did he reject natural selection in his every statement, or was he too afraid to even mutter a contrarian word about it?

   Really, to suggest that Gould could be academically intimidated is simply ludicrous. The guy held an endowed tenured professorship at Harvard, was a member of the National Academy, had won every prize, award, and honorary position a scientist in his field could aspire to, was enormously popular with the public and made more money from his books than he could ever hope to spend. That he would give a piffle about what the “Darwinist orthodoxy” thought or did is just sheer nonsense.

   In fact, in my opinion Mr. Pivar has now crossed the line from being a simple crank misusing Gould’s name and his personal connection to him to promote his own pseudo-theories and agendas, to actually tarnishing Dr. Gould’s memory and reputation by distorting his work and accomplishments, and by questioning his scientific integrity with the claim that Gould would cowardly self-censor in fear of career repercussions.

   From somebody who calls himself Gould’s friend, this is deeply troubling and saddening, to say the least.



Quote


   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:07:51 PM
Joel the Bowerbird
Joel the Bowerbird said...

   Your misconstruing of what Gould said is nothing short of inflammatory and wrong. I would ask if you have ever actually read any of his books, but I think that I already answered my question.

   Gould was certainly a talented writer, albeit a mediocre biologist. You do nothing but shame his legacy by including him on what is a clearly misguided and uninformed blog.

   Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:56:08 PM

    
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,05:09   

Gould's writings were so confused that they act as a blank slate upon which any reader can project his presuppositions. It's obvious that Gould's talents couldn't match his ambitions, and let's face it - nothing revolutionary was ever going to come from his specialty anyway. I mean, staggering around Cat Island with a  Pina Colada in his chubby little hand, picking snails out of the sand - what a good use of alumni money. But Steve's career serves as inspiration to us all: to make it big in American Academia, all one needs is an ass full of red-diaper politics, a thesaurus and a sponge memory.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,11:53   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2005,10<!--emo&:0)
But Steve's career serves as inspiration to us all: to make it big in American Academia, all one needs is an ass full of red-diaper politics, a thesaurus and a sponge memory.

Any particular reason for the red-bating? Are you still concerned that the CPUSA might try to take over the country? And surely you're not going to claim that the Soviet Union was a haven for evolutionists...

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,12:25   

Quote

Gould's writings were so confused that they act as a blank slate upon which any reader can project his presuppositions.


Really? Even Pivar's "presupposition" that Gould never made any statements of the sort that people are readily documenting that he did make?

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,05:01   

Project Steve by the Numbers

An antievolutionist tries to go all mathy about Project Steve. Hilarity follows.

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

    
Bob O'H



Posts: 1967
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,13:40   

Pivar?  Now there's a familiar name
Quote
Summary
Threat Type: Lawsuit Date:  08/16/2007
Status: Concluded Location:  New York
Disposition: Withdrawn Verdict/Settlement Amount: n/a
Legal Claims: Defamation; Tortious Interference
In August 2007, Stuart Pivar sued science blogger P.Z. Meyers and Seed Media Group, LLC (SMG) for defamation in federal court in New York. According to the complaint, Pivar is an "industrial, inventor and scientist" who edited a book called Lifecode, which...  read full description

(sorry about the formatting)

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
khan



Posts: 1480
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,14:20   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 13 2009,14:40)
Pivar?  Now there's a familiar name  
Quote
Summary
Threat Type: Lawsuit Date:  08/16/2007
Status: Concluded Location:  New York
Disposition: Withdrawn Verdict/Settlement Amount: n/a
Legal Claims: Defamation; Tortious Interference
In August 2007, Stuart Pivar sued science blogger P.Z. Meyers and Seed Media Group, LLC (SMG) for defamation in federal court in New York. According to the complaint, Pivar is an "industrial, inventor and scientist" who edited a book called Lifecode, which...  read full description

(sorry about the formatting)

That's why the name looked familiar.

"balloon animals"

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Marion Delgado



Posts: 89
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,02:59   

khan until you can explain how balloon animals evolve, how are you going to have any luck with real ones?

It's like the people who criticize Pivar without having moved their hands a mile on his planchette.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,05:34   

I notice that the older topic in this thread is apparently the only place Google now knows about the various responses to O'Leary's "Unbalanced Centrifuge" post and claims.

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

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,12:09   

Quote
"Unbalanced Centrifuge"


Is that "Things fly apart" moment?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
khan



Posts: 1480
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,12:24   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2009,06:34)
I notice that the older topic in this thread is apparently the only place Google now knows about the various responses to O'Leary's "Unbalanced Centrifuge" post and claims.

I wonder how that happened?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,12:28   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 15 2009,12:09)
Quote
"Unbalanced Centrifuge"


Is that "Things fly apart" moment?

I was trying for evoking "one-sided spinning".

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2011,15:54   

Rather than start a new thread, I resurrected this one.

Professor C. STEVEN Murphree wrote a letter-to-the-editor published today in the "Daily News Journal" of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Titled "Theistic evolution' can be an alternative for believers," Dr. Steve Murphree (Belmont University) wrote,
Quote
This was once my position (ID, gh), one that I held until after I became a biology professor, and I do not fault Mr. Myers or others who came to hold it in much the same way that I did. I was at least as passionate though not as fearful about Darwinist control as Mr. Myers, and 10 years ago I signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," a choice that I now genuinely regret."


I rejoice to pull a signatory off the Discotute list, but even better would be if STEVE Murphree signed on to the NCSE "Steve" list. My fingers are not crossed because otherwise I obviously could not type.  :D

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2012,12:10   

I just heard from Glenn Branch that Prof. Steve Murphree of Belmont University has become Project Steve #1184.  That is one less for the Discotute, and one more for the good guys!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2012,20:56   

That's awesome news!

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2012,23:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 06 2012,18:56)
That's awesome news!

I had fun with this all day. Steve #1184 had already independently mentioned that he regretted signing the Discotute list. I nudged Steve a bit on the newspaper comments, and in an email. And, Glenn dropped an invitation the very next day.

Prof. Steve Murphree is still listed as a signatory of the Discotute list. Anyway this can be helpful?

Edited by Dr.GH on Jan. 06 2012,21:18

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4471
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2012,07:04   

Actually, I've said before that the DI list statement is fuzzy enough that I could sign it... if the text were the only issue going. The fact that Murphree is on both lists illustrates that point vividly. The DI relies on additional assumptions to make the list a tool for their agenda, assumptions that have not been made clear to many of the signers. Again, Murphree illustrates this.

Yes, I think the continued listing of Murphree on the DI list can help us make clear some of these issues about the DI list.

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

    
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2012,08:00   

Would it help if Prof Hugh Jass, or Dr. Ben Dover signed the DI List?

We have it on record that O'Leary likes Hugh Jass... (thanks to ATBC)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2012,10:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 07 2012,05:04)
Actually, I've said before that the DI list statement is fuzzy enough that I could sign it... if the text were the only issue going.

I think Darwin could sign the DI statement;

Quote
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."


Darwin had no thought at all that mutation was random. His ideas about the source of hereditary variation were vaguely Lamarkian. Darwin wrote two books with major sections on selective pressure other than individual survival (Darwin's "natural selection"); sexual (behavioral) selection (specifically human), and co-evolution (specifically orchids and moths). And Darwin repeatedly asked for "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2012,12:12   

Of course they're being disingenuous. How many reputable biologists would sign the statement:

"The God of the Bible did it. Poof!."

???

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1967
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2012,03:43   

Quote
Actually, I've said before that the DI list statement is fuzzy enough that I could sign it...

Perhaps you should, along with other members of the NCSE. I think that would show up the absurdity of the list.

It would bring them publicity, though, so perhaps not right now.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
  22 replies since Oct. 26 2005,19:10 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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