RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,06:42   

The only problems around here are with the ones who are pretending to have found a problem with the theory.

--------------
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.

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,07:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,04:42)
The only problems around here are with the ones who are pretending to have found a problem with the theory.

Yeah.  "A" problem.  Gary, your not-a-theory is basically nothing but problems.  The stuff that isn't you cadged from someone else who isn't an incoherent, delusional obsessive.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,07:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 21 2014,21:30)
The theory I write is a privilege reserved for working systems that are ready for use. That is being denied by goalposts constantly being moved to theory where there is no working system ready for use, and by changing the subject to strawman arguments that ignore the fact that a model that proved it works already exist.

Not being able to follow standard practice is a symptom of science being sabotaged by religious politics, that stem from the theory in question being for a computer model of a system able to demonstrate how the phenomenon of "intelligent cause" works.

Your "theory" only works because it smuggles in the concepts it pretends to explain as part of the alleged explanation.
That's a self-referential fail.  Circularity explains nothing.

You have never provided a single actual explanation using your "theory".  The reasons are obvious -- you and your 'theory' both lack  explanatory power.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,07:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 21 2014,23:48)
After producing no evidence at all of a problem with the model and theory the critics resort to snotty insults.

Scientifically unethical behavior is normal for this forum. But that's what happens when science is this totally against them.

Blatantly false.
This entire thread is rife with evidence of multiple problems with your "theory".  You've even acknowledged problems with the wording and have obsessively polished the turd that comprises your initial paragraph.

We have provided evidence that:
your 'theory' as represented in the schema diagram you are so fond of over-posting is circular -- both 'evaluate' and 'guess' are acts of intelligence and so cannot be part of an 'explanation' of intelligence
your use of the word 'learn' and its variants is strictly at odds with, indeed, strictly in contradiction to, the standard definition as used by Cognitive Science
your use of the technical acronym RAM is incoherent at best, inconsistent in general, and wrong in every particular
your "theory" is demonstrably incapable of explaining or encompassing a multitude of acts generally considered to be intelligent
memory is not directly addressed by sensation
path-handling is not done by pre-calculation of 'all possible routes' and then selection of one of the total set of choices
Etc.

The only party to this discussion who has no evidence is you, Gary.  Results from your silly little software "simulation" is not evidential as it is based on zero facts and zero mapping to the real world.  Yet you have literally nothing else to support your twaddle.

Worse, you insist that critics have produced no evidence after 380+ pages of never once addressing the evidence that has been brought to the table.  This is scientifically dishonest and immoral -- you cannot claim that there is no contrary evidence when it is present and you simply ignore it.  The responsible, scientifically ethical thing to do is show, for each item presented, why it is not evidence of the flaws that the presenter claims it to be.
Saying 'nuh uh' is not a scientific response.  Nor is that the response your "theory" has received.

You're a scumbag.  Insults are all you have left us because you won't and don't respond to any science or evidence that we present.  Thus we engage in the only manner you leave available.
You've earned your treatment, and worse.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,07:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,07:42)
The only problems around here are with the ones who are pretending to have found a problem with the theory.

Um, no.
Blatantly false again.  In fact, massively dishonest.

The problems include the circularity of your 'explanation', the inadequacy of your 'explanation', the dishonest use of key terms with well-defined meanings in science, and the complete and total lack of evidence.

As already noted by others, there is not 'a' problem with the "theory" -- the "theory" is nothing but problems.

Go ahead, prove us wrong.
Explain, using only your current "theory", the following intelligent acts:
composing a melody without writing it down
recognizing a melody transposed into a different key and played on a different instrument
crafting a theory without writing it down
planning a trip, again with no writing, all in the mind
planning the plot of a novel
recognizing a joke
recognizing a pun
crafting a pun
Etc.

You just don't get it, do you, that tightly coupling muscle activity to intelligence, and treating intelligence as involving a tight coupling between sensation and memory, are fatal flaws.

All the problems here are yours.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,08:52   

Along with all the stuff NoName has been mentioning, remember that if you wish your model to actually support your more extreme claims, you also need to fix it and modify it extensively, getting rid of falsities like hippocampi in insects, incorporating multiple generations, populations, reproduction and recombination.  You need to fix the problem that learning from experience starting with a knowledge base of zero says nothing about the emergence of how to learn and the emergence of intelligence.  If your model is going to support your ideas in full the way you claim, it needs to show "molecular intelligence" at work creating "cellular intelligence" and it needs to demonstrate how "cellular intelligence" creates organism-level intelligence, rather than just starting and ending with an insect.  At the moment, all that it does is it suggests that memory (if that works the way you suggest, which you haven't yet demonstrated) can usefully improve on random foraging.  However, it is unclear that this is helpful in what are probably the five most basic situations,
a) when food comes to you and simply needs to be caught (see sponges and corals; sessile filter feeders),
b) when food is unpredictable and patchy, randomly distributed and/or mobile (so basically a Levy random walk would work best) (see typical insects, starfish, snails),
c) when food is evenly distributed but fixed in location (organic matter distributed evenly in sea floor sediment, best exploited by not deviating from a pattern that maximizes coverage while minimizing distance, without missing patches or going over previously covered areas: see abyssal ichnofossils like Paleodictyon, Helminthoida, Cosmoraphe, and Spiroraphe).  (If food is sparse, maximization and energy-conserving patterns are important, but if it's common, random-walks are fine, as for earthworms.)
d) when food is evenly distributed but mobile (mobile filter feeders like krill-eating whales)
e) when food is localized but infinite relative to your needs (sit in place and eat: vent communities, the snail Platyceras)  In short, memory isn't very helpful in many modes of feeding, until you incorporate stuff like needing to retreat to a shelter and then getting back to foraging areas.  The simplest strategies are hard-wired evolutionary adaptations, not individually learned and modified by experience.  Recognizing and responding to threats is a much more fruitful area for modelling the benefits of intelligence.  

While you are doing all that, you might also explain how you justify using terms that apply to individuals (learning, intelligence) to describe and subsume phenomena that exist mostly or only at the levels of populations, over multiple generations (selection, evolutionary adaptation).  That needs to be justified by new definitions of the old terms, and by showing that it improves our explanations of things.  Likewise, why should we subsume genome and mutations under memory and making guesses?

And how are you not in the same boat as poor old Bob?

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,11:58   

Quote
We should perhaps be more directly helpful to Gary in his time of woe.

Take a couple of free hints Gary.  You should look for work as a goal-post mover, or as a washer of hogs.
You lack the eloquence to be a paid political hack, although you score high marks in dissembling and dishonesty.


Politics is anybody's game.  Maybe Goo Goo should try football, they keep the goalposts pretty steady.  Until the score deems otherwise, that is.  :)

Whatta hoot!  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,21:00   

Intellectual disability linked to nerve cells that lose their 'antennae'

--------------
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.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,22:05   

Well that explains a lot.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,22:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,20:00)
Intellectual disability linked to nerve cells that lose their 'antennae'

Did you see the apostrophes enclosing the word 'antennae' in the headline?

Did you read the quote from the PhD scientist where he says "acts as kind of antennae"?

What? Do you sit around Google searching for biology terms + insect body parts?

Do you really think this has any relevance to the piss-poor piddle you call your 'theory' or your kiddie VB program?

I think there's another Google search effort you should be doing. It's real-science too.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,22:25   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 22 2014,22:05)
Well that explains a lot.

Antennae:


Intelligence Generator and Detector

--------------
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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2014,22:40   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 22 2014,22:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,20:00)
Intellectual disability linked to nerve cells that lose their 'antennae'

Did you see the apostrophes enclosing the word 'antennae' in the headline?

Did you read the quote from the PhD scientist where he says "acts as kind of antennae"?

What? Do you sit around Google searching for biology terms + insect body parts?

Do you really think this has any relevance to the piss-poor piddle you call your 'theory' or your kiddie VB program?

I think there's another Google search effort you should be doing. It's real-science too.

 
Quote
Cellular antennae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ntennae

Within the biological and medical disciplines, recent discoveries have noted that primary cilia in many types of cells within eukaryotes serve as cellular antennae. These cilia play important roles in chemosensation, mechanosensation, and thermosensation. The current scientific understanding of primary cilia organelles views them as "sensory cellular antennae that coordinate a large number of cellular signaling pathways, sometimes coupling the signaling to ciliary motility or alternatively to cell division and differentiation."[9]

"Almost every vertebrate cell has a specialized cell surface projection called a primary cilium. …primary cilia are key participants in intercellular signaling. This new appreciation of primary cilia as cellular antennae that sense a wide variety of signals could help explain why ciliary defects underlie such a wide range of human disorders, including retinal degeneration, polycystic kidney disease, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, and neural tube defects."[10]


I also read "Cellular antennae" are now being found on other kinds of cells.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,06:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,23:40)
...
I also read "Cellular antennae" are now being found on other kinds of cells.

There is literally nothing in the phrase "Cellular antennae" that asserts or implies, or even vaguely suggests, that 'antennae' are in any way, shape, or form, specific to only a subset of cells.  Your attempt to elevate the statement to something it is not, and then to imply significance to it's imagined import, neatly encapsulates your delusional anti-rational approach to the world.

No wonder you use the word 'learn' to mean the opposite of it's scientific definition, from the very science you claim to be working in.  You have no more clue as to the meaning of words than a parrot does.  The difference between you and a parrot lie in the motor skills and appendages necessary to do google searches for the 'bright and shiny' terms that have caught your limited attention.

But we were discussing evidence, and your lack thereof.
And your lie that no countering evidence to your effluent has been presented.  Just scan up the page, there are lists that present subsets.
So how about doing the honest, the moral, the scientific thing and address your dishonesty by either admitting to it and rectifying it or providing evidence that your critics are mistaken -- by actually grappling with the criticisms and refuting them.  You've even been given directions on how that might be done.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,11:23   

The lack of self-awareness boggles.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,12:52   

It is Gary's most notable feature...

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,15:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,21:40)
I also read "Cellular antennae" are now being found on other kinds of cells.

3G, 4G or LTE?

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,15:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,22:25)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ July 22 2014,22:05)
Well that explains a lot.

Antennae:


Intelligence Generator and Detector

Let's try to follow here:

Your model insect has antennae, which are used for sensing.  This is standard knowledge.

Cells sense the environment around them and communicate with other cells.  Again, this is standard, old, information that is not new or unique to your model, so no points for you here.

Scientists have been determining over the past 15 years that cells use their primary cilia to sense the environment and communicate (and that serious things go wrong when the primary cilia don't work).  Your model says that cells communicate, but this is neither new nor unique to you, so no points for you.  Your model doesn't include primary cilia.  You never discussed functions of "primary cilia" or made predictions about them.

Scientists trying to get their results across to the public say that sensing and communication functions of cilia make them sorta like antennas.  You used the word antenna in your study (again, for entirely different structures) and you like to harp on self-similarity at multiple levels, so you apparently think that this finding gives you a measure of success.  It doesn't.  Primary cilia are not the same as insect antennas, nor are they similar things at a smaller scale.  

Claims that cells sense the environment and send signals to other cells is not evidence of intelligence in action or "intelligent causation".  (Also, note that contrary to your version of intelligence, no "motors", active movement, or muscles are involved with nonmotile primary cilia - they lack dynein and the key central pair of microtubules: http://www.nature.com/scitabl....28249.)

And again, how are you not in the boat as Bob Berenz and Edgar Postrado?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,15:45   

Here Gary,

http://www.fileswap.com/dl....l....l4B7LHC

Download and listen to this mp3 and then tell us in what way you are different to Bob Berenz.

Skip to 30:40 for Bob's section.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,20:21   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 23 2014,15:45)
Download and listen to this mp3 and then tell us in what way you are different to Bob Berenz.

You can find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,20:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,20:21)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ July 23 2014,15:45)
Download and listen to this mp3 and then tell us in what way you are different to Bob Berenz.

You can find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action.

Gary, you are being ridiculous.  Evolution and natural selection are well documented by field work and lab work, and there are masses of solid mathematical models all over the fields of population genetics and ecology.  On the other hand you have yet to provide adequate operational definitions for your terms and to provide evidence that the processes that you call on can do what you assert.  You have therefore constructed a hollow house of cards - you might as well have modeled aeroplane flight by programming angels and flying unicorns holding them aloft.  In short, you are the one without a serious and testable model.  Show us some science.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,21:07   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 23 2014,20:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,20:21)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ July 23 2014,15:45)
Download and listen to this mp3 and then tell us in what way you are different to Bob Berenz.

You can find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action.

Gary, you are being ridiculous.  Evolution and natural selection are well documented by field work and lab work, and there are masses of solid mathematical models all over the fields of population genetics and ecology.  On the other hand you have yet to provide adequate operational definitions for your terms and to provide evidence that the processes that you call on can do what you assert.  You have therefore constructed a hollow house of cards - you might as well have modeled aeroplane flight by programming angels and flying unicorns holding them aloft.  In short, you are the one without a serious and testable model.  Show us some science.

You find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action.

--------------
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.

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,21:46   

Fair enough, GarGar.  Howsabout you fuck the fuck off to where the "science action" is at then?  Oh, and you have to stay there.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,22:34   

Quote
and how to program "intelligent cause" as well
Modelling your BS is your responsibility, not anybody else's.  Your stupid ideas, your waste of time.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2014,23:19   

According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off.

--------------
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.

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,01:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,21:19)
According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off.

This is stupid even by your standards, Gary.  Didn't you have some "science action" to go get?

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

  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,03:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,23:19)
According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off.


Can you blow me where the Pampers is ?

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,06:21   

Quote (Lethean @ July 24 2014,01:29)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,23:19)
According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off.


Can you blow me where the Pampers is ?

I haven't seen that movie in ages.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,07:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,22:07)
...
You find out what it is to be Bob by explaining to me how to model the systems mentioned in the information I just provided, and how to program "intelligent cause" as well. Excuses for not having a serious model for everyone to test makes you him, you have zilch. Just all talk, no science action.

To be precise, which, of course, always matters in doing actual science, you have provided no information whatsoever.
You have provided a link to information other people have provided.  You have simultaneously displayed a complete failure to comprehend that information and how it relates, or fails to relate, to your own delusions.

As to "intelligent cause", well, there's a bit of a problem.
From your own work, it is impossible to determine what is and what is not a case of "intelligent cause".  Based on your work, the phrase is strictly meaningless.
You insist that molecules learn, that the behavior of molecules is due to "intelligent cause".  
You have been repeatedly challenged to show anything at all about any molecular behavior whatsoever that is not explained by the laws of physics and chemistry.  Your response has been complete silence.
You have been asked to clarify whether acts typically considered to be instances of "intelligent cause", such as planning a shopping trip or composing a melody or recognizing a melody when presented with it transposed and played at a different temp on a different instrument, are explained under your "theory".  These are problematic  given that your "theory" requires direct sensory addressing of memory and direct memory to control of motor function connections.  Neither of these are present in any of the example cases commonly taken to be cases "intelligent cause".  Once again, your response to these questions has been complete and utter silence.

So, Gary, the problem with asking someone else to explain how to 'program "intelligent cause"' cannot be answered because no one, least of all you, can identify what the heck you mean by the phrase, what aspects of reality are included, what are excluded, and what the nature of the systems connections involved might be.
Worse, you compound your failures by insisting that any explanation be in the form of 'how to program'  the phenomenon.  How do you propose we 'program' the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen to form water, the behavior of water at its triple point, or the fact that in sufficient aggregate, water is wet?  None of these things are susceptible to explanation by programming nor is it clear that any programming-type construct would in any way count as an explanation.  In  fact, the explanation would have to precede the programming.

Finally, let us once again note your profound failure of ethics, particularly scientific ethics, in having lied about your work and its evidential foundations, or, more precisely, the complete lack thereof, along with your false claims that no one has presented counter evidence.  You compound the ethical failure by then proceeding to ignore the corrections of these blatant falsehoods that have been provided.  These are the behavior marks of a scientific fraud.  In your case, given your demonstrated dishonesty and ineptitude, it seems that they are also marks of one who aspires to be a scientific fraud but can't muster the intellectual pre-requisites.  Your work fails to rise to the level of scientific fraud.  It is an anti-scientific blunder at best.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,13:38   

Quote
It is Gary's most notable feature...


Well, except for the tinfoil hat, covering his antennae . . . . . (and his ears)

Whatta hoot!  :)  :)  :)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,15:18   

Curses, tinfoiled again...

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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