RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (15) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 >   
  Topic: Philo 4483: Christian Faith and Science, Honest questions from Dembski's students< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:12   

What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:24   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,17:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Paul: don' push it!

Even me, a layman so down the scale I could be an
amoeba with a degree in geoplastics, can understand c14 and other radioactive means of dating..

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:41   

[quote=bjray,April 26 2010,00:12][/quote]
Quote
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing?


Not in general, no. But let's see what you think:

Quote
ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation.


Perhaps you should ask yourself why that might be the case? Certainly it could be bias on our part, but if you are intellectually honest, you'd consider that it could very well be that you are all presenting the same fallacious arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...again and again and again and again.


Quote
There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too.


Well sure - WE'RE REPONDING TO THE SAME EXACT CREATIONISTS FALLACIES AND ERRORS. Why would you expect our responses be any different? That you do indicates insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Quote
To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant, I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim. I misconstrue facts or arguments. I'm a typical creationists. I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).


Not a bad summary. But you left out one key thing - you had and have the opportunity to avoid/change the above. You came here claiming you were interested in learning, then proceded to present fallacious and erroneous claims instead. Why would you think that we would react in any other way than calling a spade a spade? If you are actually serious about learning, then don't rely on your guesses, opinions, and assumptions. Further, don't just rely on claims by other creationists - go out and actually read the research being conducted and then discuss it.

--------------
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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:44   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

When someone is at that level of ignorance, and (worse yet) shows no signs to date of being aware of how ignorant that statement was, there really is no future in asking him to proceed.

I'm not saying that mockery is the only alternative left, but I don't see any reason to engage him further.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,11:45   

A species is a kind of critter.

Next question?

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,12:13   

Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,12:40   

Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,10:13)
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

Coconuts!

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

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,12:49   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,13:40)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,10:13)
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

Coconuts!

That was only pre-eden.  Now they play hard to get.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,15:18   

Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,18:13)
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

POTW?

I squirted [insert drink of choice here] through my [insert orifice of choice here]...

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,15:36   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,13:18)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,18:13)
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

POTW?

I squirted [insert drink of choice here] through my [insert orifice of choice here]...

saline solution / straws in my charred nasal passages.

Too soon?

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,15:42   

Quote
Even me, a layman so down the scale I could be an
amoeba with a degree in geoplastics, can understand c14 and other radioactive means of dating..


I once overheard an ex-girlfriend describing me as "radioactive."

It was only much later in life I discovered that it wasn't a superpower.

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,15:44   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,13:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,13:18)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,18:13)
 
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

POTW?

I squirted [insert drink of choice here] through my [insert orifice of choice here]...

saline solution / straws in my charred nasal passages.

Too soon?

Not too soon for me. Sorry, SD!

--------------
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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,16:01   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 26 2010,13:42)
Quote
Even me, a layman so down the scale I could be an
amoeba with a degree in geoplastics, can understand c14 and other radioactive means of dating..


I once overheard an ex-girlfriend describing me as "radioactive."

It was only much later in life I discovered that it wasn't a superpower.

Well I hope you discovered soap soon afterward. :-)

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,16:28   

Quote (didymos @ April 26 2010,21:44)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,13:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,13:18)
 
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,18:13)
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

POTW?

I squirted [insert drink of choice here] through my [insert orifice of choice here]...

saline solution / straws in my charred nasal passages.

Too soon?

Not too soon for me. Sorry, SD!

For me neither.

These few last posts made my day!

:D

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,17:37   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,14:28)
Quote (didymos @ April 26 2010,21:44)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,13:36)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,13:18)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,18:13)
 
Quote
(Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,11:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.

Because they prefer chocolate and flowers?

POTW?

I squirted [insert drink of choice here] through my [insert orifice of choice here]...

saline solution / straws in my charred nasal passages.

Too soon?

Not too soon for me. Sorry, SD!

For me neither.

These few last posts made my day!

:D

Maybe you should change your moniker to Schrodinger's Dragon.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1040
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,17:44   

Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,00:12)
BTW Texas Teach: 1) I've got more than "a few credit hours" of introductory philosophy. Might I inquire as to how many you've got under your belt, if any? 2) Yet again, I never claimed to be speaking Ex Cathedra about any of this.

I took a few classes as part of my minor waaaay back when. But my goal is not to play dueling credentials with you. Please don't confuse my statement with an actual attempt to assess your level of education. It was pure mockery of the tactic of trying to tell real scientists that philosophy (in any amount) trumps 150+ years of empiricism. Popper learned that lesson the hard way, too.

Now, let's focus on the real question: What is a species?

edited for singular/plural agreement

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,17:47   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 26 2010,09:12)
What is a species is good, but I would like him to explain in his own words why C14 dating is useless for dating dinosaurs.
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

--------------
"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: 4080
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2010,22:56   

Quote
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

Tell that to Sarak and Amanda...

Henry

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,00:15   

Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,20:56)
Quote
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

Tell that to Sarak and Amanda...

Henry

Sarek. Yeah. Funny I was just on IMDB today. Apparently the woman who played Amanda was also on "Father Knows Best", which was before my time.

--------------
"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: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,00:16   

Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,20:56)
Quote
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

Tell that to Sarak and Amanda...

Henry

Or Louis Wu.

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,01:30   

Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,00:12)
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing?
No, it is not. This is largely because we are not, in fact, "do(ing) exactly the same thing" as you. The main difference between our behavior and yours is that when we assert something to be true, we do so on evidence-based grounds -- but when you assert something to be true, you do so on the grounds that you feverishly, desperately want and need it to be true. If you disagree with my last sentence, I invite you to discuss it with me.
 
Quote
ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too.
Well, yes. All of you Creationists do make pretty much the same identical suite of errors; this being the case, it is only logical that there might be a certain degree of similarity in all the corrections to that identical suite of errors.
 
Quote
To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant.
It's like this, bjray: You are ignorant. And you have been pretty consistent about displaying your ignorance in the messages you've posted here. This being the case, it is hardly surprising that some of the responses to your messages would make note of your ignorance.
Do you have some sort of problem with ignorant people being accurately described as ignorant, bjray? If so, I would recommend that you stop posting messages which put your ignorance on public display. I would further recommend that you remedy your ignorance by learning about the topics of which you are currently ignorant -- and evolution is certainly one of those topics -- but if you choose to cleave unto your ignorance, much as a dog returns to its vomit... well, that is entirely your choice, bjray.
 
Quote
I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim.
Yes, you should read further before you make outlandish claims. Do you have some sort of a problem with the notion that people really ought to know what the fuck they're talking about?
 
Quote
I misconstrue facts or arguments.
Well, you do misconstrue facts and arguments, bjray. Do you have some sort of a problem with people calling out intellectual errors of that sort?
 
Quote
I'm a typical creationists.
Yes. You are a typical Creationist. Do you have some sort of a problem with being accurately described as what you are?
 
Quote
I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).
Bullshit, bjray. Bull-fucking-shit. This post of yours to which I am replying is, itself, a grade A, USDA Choice, primo grande example of Typical Creationist Whining. I mean, Christ's abscessed wisdom teeth, bjray: Exactly why the fuck did you bother with all that you guys call me ignorant and say I'm a Creationist and yada yada verbiage, if not in an attempt to gather sympathy from readers by citing examples of unpleasantries directed at you without also citing the reasons why those unpleasantries were directed at you, hm?
Do you have some sort of a problem with your behavior being accurately characterized as what it is?

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,03:10   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,22:16)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,20:56)
Quote
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

Tell that to Sarak and Amanda...

Henry

Or Louis Wu.

Rishathra FTW!

--------------
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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,06:58   

Quote (didymos @ April 27 2010,04:10)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 26 2010,22:16)
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2010,20:56)
 
Quote
Dating outside one's species is never a good idea.

Tell that to Sarak and Amanda...

Henry

Or Louis Wu.

Rishathra FTW!

I can't say it's never crossed my mind.



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,22:21   

I am definitely not expecting bjray to show up again. But he's managed to surprise me on this score once, so perhaps he might do so again. So just in case you are hanging around here, bjray, I would recommend that you make up your mind what you're really trying to do here.

If you're trying to drum up sympathy for ID: In this case, you would be well advised to never bother with us again. Because the regulars here have already examined the claims and substance of ID, and having weighed ID, found it deplorably wanting. So any time someone makes noise about how real scientists ignore ID, our reaction (which may or may not be publicly expressed) is going to be something in the neighborhood of Yep, real scientists sure do ignore ID. Sucks to be an ID-pusher. And making noise about how real scientists are mean to ID-pushers isn't going to engender a whole lot of sympathy towards ID or change our minds, either, because we've seen how you ID-pushers operate. We've seen how ID-pushers say that ID is genuine science, no religion need apply, no sir -- and then, in the very next breath, they say that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Abraham. We've seen ID-pushers complain about how people who refuse to give a platform to the scientific theory of ID (and ID is a scientific theory, just ask any ID-pusher!) are guilty of religious discrimination. We've seen how the people who made the pro-ID propaganda film EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED fucking lied to the real scientists they got on film; and they fucking lied about having lied to the victims of their deceit; and they fucking lied about the ID poster children who they falsely presented as innocent victims of a dogmatically intolerant Darwinist mafia/establishment; and when one of the scientists who appeared in EXPELLED was, himself, expelled from a screening of the film, we saw how the filmmakers fucking lied about that, too. We've seen how ID-pushers complain about both how the scientific theory of ID is never given a fair hearing by real scientists, and how cruelly unfair it is for real scientists to ask them what the fuck this 'scientific theory of ID', that real scientists are supposed to give a fair hearing to, even is. We've seen how ID-pushers insist that science itself must be fucking redefined to accomodate ID.
As I noted before, this is not virgin territory. There is an awful bleeding lot of history here, and this history does not reflect well on ID. If it was just a matter of ID being a failed scientific theory, that would be one thing; in science, it's okay to be mistaken. But given the sheer quantity of misrepresentations, evasions, and outright lies which ID-pushers have disgorged and continue to disgorge... well... begging for sympathy for ID is a tactic which can only work when you're talking to people who are ignorant of ID's voluminously ignominious track record.
And we are not ignorant of ID's voluminously ignominious track record.

If you're trying to persuade us that ID is a genuine scientific theory, and that it's better than evolution: In this case, you're gonna need to tool up for a whole different game than you've been playing thus far.
You're going to have to answer questions about ID.
Not evade those questions with non-responsive verbiage, but answer them. And you're going to have to answer those questions honestly.
And when an argument or assertion of yours is refuted, you should not repeat that refuted argument or assertion. You say that the refutation of your argument was invalid, hence your argument wasn't really refuted at all? Okay, fine: Demonstrate that the refutation was invalid. Don't just whine about how [insert name of person] got it wrong, show us exactly how and where [insert name of person] got it wrong. Because if all you have to say is just the bare assertion that "He got it wrong", without any specific details of how he got it wrong, I can guarantee you that nobody here is going to give a tenth of a tinker's damn about your unsupported assertion.
And don't bring up irrelevant information, either. If you're trying to establish that ID is correct, what you need to do is bring up information that is actually relevant to the question of ID's correctness.
If you don't know the answer to a question, admit it. A good, honest "Um, I don't know..." will get you infinitely more respect in these parts than any amount of obfuscatory verbiage that's designed to conceal the absence of an answer.

As best I can tell from your posts here, bjray, you approach the ID/evolution debate from a basically religious perspective -- but that ain't gonna fly in this context. In scientific debates, it all boils down to the empirical, objective data; if that empirical, objective data fits your theory better than it fits the other guy's theory, your theory wins. But in religious debates, there is no empirical, objective data! Rather, religious debates are all about personal revelation. In a debate where objective data isn't available, it makes perfect sense to look at the beliefs and preconceptions and yada yada of the particular human beings involved... but in a scientific debate, objective data is available, so it's kind of beside the point to appeal to specific aspects/qualities of the particular human beings involved. In a religious debate, it makes sense to point out that one's opponents do not behave in a manner consistent with their morality, because morality comes from God and yada yada yada; in a scientific debate, as long as John Doe's got the objective, empirical data backing him up, Doe's personal behavior doesn't fucking matter.
So as I said, religious debates are very different from scientific debates. And if you happen to be in a scientific debate, the use of tools and techniques peculiar to religious debate is not likely to yield any results you might enjoy.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2138
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,00:28   

Quote (Cubist @ April 27 2010,20:21)
I am definitely not expecting bjray to show up again. (snip)

potw.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,08:48   

+1 for POTW (and the month and the year)

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

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

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,14:50   

Quote (Louis @ April 26 2010,09:45)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2010,14:38)
Although I think everyone is getting their hopes up a bit too much regarding Bj, I will propose this:

Ask him a single question, a relevant one that he won't escape, and wait for him to answer. Not n^5 questions, just one everyone agrees on.

Ignore whatever other drivell he's trying to insert here.

Then we'll all know if he's being honest or not...

Seconded.

Louis

And here I was finally back and thinking of piling on too, but I'm ok with this.

I haven't read past this post, but my bet is that we'll see the Paluxey (sp?) "human" tracks or the Piltdown Man next.  Or maybe "Noah's Ark"  :D

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,15:29   

Well, maybe "What is a species?" is too sciency.

I was wondering this morning "Just what in the Hell is Dembski teaching?"

I recall reading the syllabus some months ago. I had read most of the books on the required, and recommended list. But I doubt very much that Dembski and I would offer the same course.

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

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

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,20:40   

I forgot - I think Talk Origins was mentioned, but did anyone link to the Index to Creationist Claims site?  It might help if BJray (and others) check there first before spouting the same old tired "arguments".  If they are not there, then post.  If they are, read and learn, please.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2010,21:14   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 28 2010,18:40)
I forgot - I think Talk Origins was mentioned, but did anyone link to the Index to Creationist Claims site? It might help if BJray (and others) check there first before spouting the same old tired "arguments". If they are not there, then post. If they are, read and learn, please.

Yes. No positive results were noted, but additional trials may be warranted.

  
  444 replies since Feb. 22 2010,14:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (15) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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