RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (378) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 495
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,03:56   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,19:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.

I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.

He would find common ground with Doug Dobney/Socrates.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,06:05   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,03:02)
Did Dr. Leisola suggest that your stuff would be too long for a Bio-Complexity article or is this your impression?
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  Actually, Darwin did the same. Hewrote a short summary when he was informed that Wallace had come to the same conclusions independently.
In addition, 70 pages of a word document will reduce to much less when printed in a journal. Thus, you opus would be shorter than Albert Einstein's Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie is long (53 pages) which was still published in a journal (Annalen der Physik. 49, 1916, 769–822).

Matti said quote: "After looking your text I feel that it is more suitable as a book, since it attempts to cover so much ground."

The latest attempt to be within journal limits was the pdf with PNAS template:

https://sites.google.com/site.......fID.pdf

Considering the number of sections that need to be added (Speciation, Cambrian Explosion, 4 levels of intelligence, computer model instructions/documentation and in-color circuit schematics, etc.) I would be lucky to fit 1/3 of it.

Have to also consider the public policy of all the top journals.  The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.  Writing it could very well be just another huge waste of time.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,07:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,06:05)
Have to also consider the public policy of all the top journals.  The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.  Writing it could very well be just another huge waste of time.

There are several ID journals desperate for content.

What's the hold up?

Quote
 The paper must be immediately rejected/deleted upon reading the title.

Yes, indeed, so better not to even try?

It's funny but for all the claims of this happening over the years (papers being rejected for supporting ID not for their content) nobody has ever been able to name a single paper where this has happened.

Not a single one.

So you don't really have anything to worry about just yet in that regard.

So stop fucking pretending that's why you are not going to attempt to get published. That's what KF says you know. That he's not even going to try because it'll be rejected out of hand.

Don't try, it'll never happen. Try and at least you have a chance.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,08:57   

Quote
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.

Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,09:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,17:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2012,17:02)
   
Quote
For your plan to work as a counter-tactic you here have to in court show that the Intelligence Design Lab and its documentation is from religious scripture instead of from Heiserman, Trehub, and other researchers and research that is linked to from the theory.  By the time the judge finishes reading it, they will be wondering how any sane person would even want to try stopping public schools from teaching science.


It's already happened. You lot lost. Get over it already!

If/when it comes to court again, guess what. You'll lose again! And again!

Oh, and the Dover, PA ruling by Judge Jones was only against the actions of their school board (that read a statement against another theory in classrooms and had creationism books in school library) not against the "Theory of Intelligent Design".   As long as the teachers stick to the science that is in the theory it is legal to teach in any US public school district, including Dover's.  Some states even enacted bills to protect teachers from being harassed for (within bounds of science) teaching it.  Hence this makes sense: Jimmy Eat World - My Best Theory

This is incorrect.

Jones was specifically asked, by BOTH sides to rule on the status of Intelligent Design.  He did so.  The fact that is was against ID is their problem, not anyone else's.

By the way, during that trial Michael Behe specifically denied that ID has any kind of mechanism.  In fact, IIRC, he stated that they weren't even looking for a mechanism.

So a previous comment from you is also wrong.  

Because Jones ruled that ID is creationism and creationism is based in religion, not science, then teachers do not have the right to teach it.

Again, and apparently this has been going on for 7 pages while I've been away...

WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,09:15   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 04 2012,08:57)
Quote
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.

Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.

And it's not a theory.  It's a notion and a sucky one at best.

A scientific theory is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon.

Well supported doesn't mean two lawyers writing blog articles about it all day.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,09:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,03:15)
BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

I watched that right after The Rural Juror. It was good.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,09:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,20:05)
It sounds like you are saying I need to make the punch-lines show up better, and use more expression.  Is this sentence better?

Cows who know a moose when they see one, will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose, because they cannot see the difference either!

No, what I'm saying is, you've got 40 pages of babble but no theory. You haven't presented a theory, Gary.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,11:08   

we are playing full-cover bingo right, just trying to make sure before i upset the game

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,12:13   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,01:02)
Isn't it possible to summerize it?  

Which is, of course, the opposite of winterize.

(Cue jokes about how it should be moth-balled, deep-sixed, flash frozen, &c...)

--------------
"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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,12:21   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,07:15)
   
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 04 2012,08:57)
   
Quote
My problem still boils down to this theory being a 1000 times more challenging than a research type paper, article or review.

Suggest you launch a S(ET)I of your own. You might find your peers, doesn't look like you'll find any here.

And it's not a theory.  It's a notion and a sucky one at best.

A scientific theory is a well supported explanation for a phenomenon.

Well supported doesn't mean two lawyers writing blog articles about it all day.

When you work at one job, or study one subject, or play one game/instrument/musical style for too long, there's a danger of filtering the whole world through your job/subject/play goggles. I'm pretty sure that's what's happend here. He's just trying to impose the purity of programming on the messiness of life.

Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.

--------------
"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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,12:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,13:21)
Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.

After I read his 40-something page version I went back and scanned the whole thing because I literally couldn't find an argument for ID.

If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,12:57   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,07:18)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,03:15)
BioComplexity is good for short presentations like this one for "The Lignin Enigma":

I watched that right after The Rural Juror. It was good.

Especially in Japanese.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,17:13   

Quote
If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?

Don't ask me. From the bits that I managed to bring myself to glance at, I got the impression that he thinks that molecules have to "know" how to react with each other before they can do so.

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,17:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,12:52)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,13:21)
Not working, Gary. You can't even write coherent sentences. Who's going to try to wade through 50+ pages of gibberish? It's not that your ideas are too advanced or complex. It's that you can't get to the fucking point, already.

After I read his 40-something page version I went back and scanned the whole thing because I literally couldn't find an argument for ID.

If anybody reads it and finds an actual argument, please let me know, because I'm mystified. Gary doesn't seem to actually have an argument for ID, yet he believes he does, and believes it's compelling. WTF?

If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,18:04   

We are dealing here with a rare specimen.  Pure stuff.  Highest rating on the crackpot scale:
Quote

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,18:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,18:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

Obviously such models are allowed because that's where you got your details from. But your models don't feature an actual, you know, *designer* anywhere, Gary, or what the designer did, how it did it, when it was done, etc.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,18:31   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,18:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

Obviously such models are allowed because that's where you got your details from. But your models don't feature an actual, you know, *designer* anywhere, Gary, or what the designer did, how it did it, when it was done, etc.

Or in other words, your hypocritical scientific requirements demand that I pull Jesus from a hat.

Get into that, get into that.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,18:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,18:53   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,18:40)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

Or in other words, the show must go on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Med0s6E

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,19:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,19:40)
[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 04 2012,19:31][/quote]
Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

or, you know, provide a description of a mechanism which makes useful predictions.

so far, you have provided flowcharts, "i dun wunned an award therefore ID", culture war Dover, culture war Kansas, irrelevant horsepifflery and several thousand words of text which are functionally indistinguishable from randomly generated bafflegab.

don't get me wrong buddy, i love laughing my tits off at this sort of thing.  it's just that if you are really serious about this bullshit* then you really suck at it

*yeah right i call Loki

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,20:11   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2012,19:28)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2012,19:40)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,19:31)

Your reading comprehension is weak. Neither I nor anyone else here requires any such thing. What we need from you is a model that includes a designer, and some details about how to distinguish designed crap from naturally occurring undesigned crap.

or, you know, provide a description of a mechanism which makes useful predictions.

so far, you have provided flowcharts, "i dun wunned an award therefore ID", culture war Dover, culture war Kansas, irrelevant horsepifflery and several thousand words of text which are functionally indistinguishable from randomly generated bafflegab.

don't get me wrong buddy, i love laughing my tits off at this sort of thing.  it's just that if you are really serious about this bullshit* then you really suck at it

*yeah right i call Loki

Or in other non-words:



If this is not scientific enough for you then it's not my fault that through those who live for scientific discovery like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science, while your fate is to laugh until you cry, then you die, then you die (of old age).  

 
Quote
The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1


Hopefully you were already taught the concept where ones with entirely religious or political motives just die-off with time, while through those who only cared about the science the theory forever remains undefeated...  

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,20:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
If this is not scientific enough for you then it's not my fault that through those who live for scientific discovery like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science, while your fate is to laugh until you cry, then you die, then you die (of old age).  

Word salad indeed.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,21:29   

Gary,

Why are you arguing with us about what science is?

Why don't you just provide the evidence that a designer exists?

Why don't you actually talk about the mistakes in your understanding of science?

Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,21:52   

I just want to see a single logical argument from this guy.

Here's a simple argument, Gary.

Proposition1: All horses weigh less than 17 tons.
Proposition2: Rafalca is a horse.
Conclusion: Therefore Rafalca weighs less than 17 tons.

Give us some propositions, Gary, how ever many you want, that logically concludes: Therefore (x natural thing) was designed. A coherent, logical argument. Not this endless babble you've given us so far. You've literally been the worst advocate for ID that we've ever seen.

   
sparc



Posts: 1671
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,21:56   

Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,22:29   

Okay, GG, you invented a... um... let's be polite and call it a unique way of modelling life.

As the giant kid in "Food of the Gods" said, "What's it all for?"

Seriously, dude. Now you've got this giant flowchart, what are you going to do with it?

Besides wallpaper your bedroom (alternating with your big-whoop, programmer-of-the-minute badge), I mean.

As it stands, it's about as useful as the Greek tragedy of Aether and Phlogiston.

--------------
"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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,22:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Gary,

Why are you arguing with us about what science is?


So that lurkers know why you have none to offer.

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you just provide the evidence that a designer exists?


Already did.  

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you actually talk about the mistakes in your understanding of science?


Such as?

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,23:20   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Cubist



Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2012,23:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…

  
  11333 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (378) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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