RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 392 393 394 395 396 [397] 398 399 400 401 402 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,05:59   

Gary, why don't you ever post at Uncommonly Dense?

Subsequent to the St. Kitzmiller Massacre it is literally the only remaining ID blog. Yet despite their monopoly they are starved for actual ID news (as opposed to banging on how Darwin=Hitler etc).

So it seems odd that if your theory is doing as well as you claim why does the web's foremost ID blog never mention it?

Why is that, Gary?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,06:15   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 15 2014,05:59)
Gary, why don't you ever post at Uncommonly Dense?

Subsequent to the St. Kitzmiller Massacre it is literally the only remaining ID blog. Yet despite their monopoly they are starved for actual ID news (as opposed to banging on how Darwin=Hitler etc).

So it seems odd that if your theory is doing as well as you claim why does the web's foremost ID blog never mention it?

Why is that, Gary?

If they are even aware of him, I'd imagine that that even they can see that Gary's version of intelligent design 1) doesn't make sense, 2) doesn't involve design, and 3) uses a definition of intelligence that excludes god from being intelligent.  But it would be interesting to hear them address Gary, and no doubt Gary has a different explanation for why they are ignoring him.

Gary, you still haven't explained why your nonsense hasn't been made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's actually published, more recent, and more comprehensive nonsense.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,11:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 15 2014,04:15)
If they are even aware of him, I'd imagine that that even they can see that Gary's version of intelligent design 1) doesn't make sense, 2) doesn't involve design, and 3) uses a definition of intelligence that excludes god from being intelligent.  But it would be interesting to hear them address Gary, and no doubt Gary has a different explanation for why they are ignoring him.

An additional consideration is that they've already got batshit77, Barry, and Gordon to babble incoherently all day, and their webhosting service charges by the yard.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,22:05   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 15 2014,05:59)
Gary, why don't you ever post at Uncommonly Dense?

Subsequent to the St. Kitzmiller Massacre it is literally the only remaining ID blog. Yet despite their monopoly they are starved for actual ID news (as opposed to banging on how Darwin=Hitler etc).

So it seems odd that if your theory is doing as well as you claim why does the web's foremost ID blog never mention it?

Why is that, Gary?

A few times I tried to register to comment but for some reason it didn't work. But my interest before even starting to develop the Theory of Intelligent Design is in computer modeling of cognitive systems based on the machine intelligence systematics from David Heiserman. My work ends up at Planet Source Code and other places. In a way I'm not from the UD world and with my bad reputation for being so scientifically demanding maybe some prefer it being like an island away from me, while I navigate the surroundings where they know where to find me anyway. I'm just guessing, but in a way it might be my fault because for some reason I need to be at a place like this and Sandwalk as well as more serious forums like Kurzweil AI. I'm happy for what I have.

Now that you mention it though it does I guess seem weird that I am not like an ID celebrity by now for my lasting work, in other worlds. But I'm used to being in the middle of two extremes, where neither polarized side quite knows what to make of me. So in a way everything is normal and with all considered it's a good indicator that all is well in regards to staying neutral.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,22:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 15 2014,22:05)
A few times I tried to register to comment but for some reason it didn't work.

They're already past their 'crazy' quota...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,22:15   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 15 2014,06:15)
uses a definition of intelligence that excludes god from being intelligent.

That depends on your operational definition for "god". If Trinity with a capital T and other common religious concepts are a requirement then your opinion is false.

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2014,03:23   

Quote
...and with my bad reputation for being so scientifically demanding....

Deluded to the last.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2014,05:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 15 2014,22:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 15 2014,06:15)
uses a definition of intelligence that excludes god from being intelligent.

That depends on your operational definition for "god". If Trinity with a capital T and other common religious concepts are a requirement then your opinion is false.

Hogwash, again.
Your words:
Quote

[1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements,

The christian god, being a supernatural deity, does not have a body or a modelling platform with motor muscles and lacks a "memory addressed by sensory sensors that remember each" of the motor actions that it cannot perform.  Arguably, being omniscient and perfect, it also does not make guesses, but failing two out of four is more than enough to fail your test of intelligence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2014,23:15   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 16 2014,05:34)
The christian god, being a supernatural deity,

I know that it's all you got, but I'm done chasing religious red-herrings.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,02:32   

A red herring is a different concept from reductio ad absurdum, and N. Wells is engaging in the latter, not the former.

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

    
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,02:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,07:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 16 2014,05:34)
The christian god, being a supernatural deity,

I know that it's all you got, but I'm done chasing religious red-herrings.

Yeah sure Gary The Flying Spaghetti Monster does it all by magic.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,08:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,00:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 16 2014,05:34)
The christian god, being a supernatural deity,

I know that it's all you got, but I'm done chasing religious red-herrings.

Oh, good.
Then we can expect on-topic responses to the serious challenges raised against your workeffluent to start appearing?
Your ridiculous little "theory" has been demolished on the [abundant lack of] merits.  Resurrect it from the ashes or walk away.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,10:31   

The only circumstance in which Gary would be correct in terming N. Wells argument a red herring is the one in which Gary explicitly denies the existence of God. That's the only circumstance in which assessing whether God meets Gary's criteria for intelligence is not a valid area of inquiry. I was assuming, though, that Gary was not denying the existence of God. So, Gary, let us know if you really meant "red herring" (which implies that you deny the existence of God) or whether you were mistaken about what to call an argument whose outcome you didn't like.

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

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,11:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2014,10:31)
The only circumstance in which Gary would be correct in terming N. Wells argument a red herring is the one in which Gary explicitly denies the existence of God. That's the only circumstance in which assessing whether God meets Gary's criteria for intelligence is not a valid area of inquiry. I was assuming, though, that Gary was not denying the existence of God. So, Gary, let us know if you really meant "red herring" (which implies that you deny the existence of God) or whether you were mistaken about what to call an argument whose outcome you didn't like.

True, if we were assessing Gary's ideas, but the context is why most "mainstream IDists" might not care for Gary's ideas.  They are increasingly explicitly religious, and Gary's usage of intelligence excludes their god from being intelligent (as far as I can see, and regardless of Gary's opinions about the existence or non-existence of their god).   I'm presuming that such a conclusion would not be to their liking.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,11:49   

I had a Phi of Sci prof say one time that ID was not just bad science, it was bad theology. Gary's Garbage is not just bad science and bad theology, it's bad ID--it wrecks the whole point of ID, which is to sneak creationism in.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,16:17   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2014,11:49)
I had a Phi of Sci prof say one time that ID was not just bad science, it was bad theology. Gary's Garbage is not just bad science and bad theology, it's bad ID--it wrecks the whole point of ID, which is to sneak creationism in.

The point of Gary's ID is to sneak Gary in.  Its goal is to get someone, somewhere to pay attention to Gary and tell him how great he is.

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

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,16:38   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 19 2014,14:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2014,11:49)
I had a Phi of Sci prof say one time that ID was not just bad science, it was bad theology. Gary's Garbage is not just bad science and bad theology, it's bad ID--it wrecks the whole point of ID, which is to sneak creationism in.

The point of Gary's ID is to sneak Gary in.  Its goal is to get someone, somewhere to pay attention to Gary and tell him how great he is.

This.

At some point, I suspect Gary will give up on the ID branding and start calling his notions "dark energy", "chaos theory" or whatever jargon-du-jour he thinks will attract attention.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,17:40   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 19 2014,16:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2014,11:49)
I had a Phi of Sci prof say one time that ID was not just bad science, it was bad theology. Gary's Garbage is not just bad science and bad theology, it's bad ID--it wrecks the whole point of ID, which is to sneak creationism in.

The point of Gary's ID is to sneak Gary in.  Its goal is to get someone, somewhere to pay attention to Gary and tell him how great he is.

From Gary at http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......nt-form
Quote
it's part of an award winning computer model (that has a 5 globe rating after the bully votes that were disqualified are subtracted out) called the Intelligence Design Lab at Planet Source Code (and more since). Ones who don't care about that would not accomplish anything scientific with it anyway. They are scientifically irrelevant to begin with. What matters is being where all of this is valuable enough for none to care about perfect grammar with a few million dollars of polishing up


Heck, if we follow Gary's logic and subtract out all the negative comments from bullies, science-stoppers, religious darwinists, scientifically irrelevant people, and people who care about good grammar and readable prose, et cetera et cetera then EVERYBODY who is left* is constantly telling him how great he is.

*Which would be no one, thus proving that Gary truly is living in his own separate reality.  Well, except maybe his wife.  If you similarly subtract out any and all negative comments from her, I'll bet she's otherwise just thrilled with the situation too.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,20:31   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2014,02:32)
A red herring is a different concept from reductio ad absurdum, and N. Wells is engaging in the latter, not the former.

When an opponent needs to rely on their philosophy/religion of Naturalism to argue that God is “supernatural” that is their personal religious belief, not mine, nor is it science. It's just another red-herring.

--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,20:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:31)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2014,02:32)
A red herring is a different concept from reductio ad absurdum, and N. Wells is engaging in the latter, not the former.

When an opponent needs to rely on their philosophy/religion of Naturalism to argue that God is “supernatural” that is their personal religious belief, not mine, nor is it science. It's just another red-herring.

That's not my belief - it's a standard article of christian faith that their god is not flesh and blood but spirit*.  Deities are by definition supernatural (how can the christian god be natural if it is supposed to have created nature?), or do you now wish to have your own special definitions of deity and supernatural to go along with your stupid use of "intelligence"?  Do you want to insist that the christian god is supposed to be corporeal and has a    
Quote
body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen)
 The religious folk are going to be even less happy with you than the science folk.

 
Quote
God is a Spirit1 and is the Creator of all things2. He alone is eternal (has always existed3) and is the self–existing one (He is complerely self–sufficient and independent of anything else for His existence4). He is loving5, all–knowing6, all–powerful7, omnipresent (present everywhere at all times8), unchanging9, holy (without sin10), just11, long–suffering12, gracious, righteous, and merciful13. He is the One True God (all other so–called gods are nothing but man–made idols) who reveals Himself in three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit14.

1 John 4:24
2 Genesis 1; Psalm 100:3; John 1:1–3
3 Psalm 90:1–2
4 Isaiah 40:12–31
5 1 John 4:7–8
6 Psalm 139:1–4
7 Genesis 17:1; Jeremiah 32:17
8 Psalm 139:7–10
9 Psalm 102:25–27
10 Psalm 99:9; 1 Peter 1:15–16
11 Psalm 7:11
12 2 Peter 3:9
13 Psalm 116:5
14 Psalm 96:4–5; Isaiah 44:6, 14–17

from http://christianchurchcharlestonfourcorners.org/howdoes....s3.html

I'm not seeing much mention there of bodies, modeling platforms, motor muscles, proteins, electric speakers, or  electronic “writes” to a screen.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,20:57   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 19 2014,16:38)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 19 2014,14:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2014,11:49)
I had a Phi of Sci prof say one time that ID was not just bad science, it was bad theology. Gary's Garbage is not just bad science and bad theology, it's bad ID--it wrecks the whole point of ID, which is to sneak creationism in.

The point of Gary's ID is to sneak Gary in.  Its goal is to get someone, somewhere to pay attention to Gary and tell him how great he is.

This.

At some point, I suspect Gary will give up on the ID branding and start calling his notions "dark energy", "chaos theory" or whatever jargon-du-jour he thinks will attract attention.

Changing the title does not change any of the rest that goes on into "intelligent cause". I can't call it something other than scientific terminology allows, as you are suggesting I do because of religious implications you would sacrifice the integrity of science to hide from the general public. The model and theory has already for years been online, anyway, and sure don't regret it.

And good news in regards to getting the press bought for rebuilding (that was in worse shape than we thought and had to be fixed as finances allowed) running for a first printing of books/booklets. I can also run it on one of the production machines but only when not busy, which is becoming rare.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014....1850324

--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,21:03   

Quote
I can't call it something other than scientific terminology allows, as you are suggesting I do because of religious implications you would sacrifice the integrity of science
You have yet to demonstrate the presence of intelligence at the levels that you claim, and your model doesn't even demonstrate design creating anything, let alone prove it.  Also, your rubbish doesn't rise to the level of a theory, and it isn't related to what was previously called Intelligent Design.  Thus you are running 0 for 4 on the naming front.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,21:05   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,20:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:31)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2014,02:32)
A red herring is a different concept from reductio ad absurdum, and N. Wells is engaging in the latter, not the former.

When an opponent needs to rely on their philosophy/religion of Naturalism to argue that God is “supernatural” that is their personal religious belief, not mine, nor is it science. It's just another red-herring.

That's not my belief - that's a standard article of christian faith*.

No that is your red-herring that assumes all in the Christian faith follow your philosophy of Naturalism when in fact good number have complained (even legally) about your red-herring dichotomy:

http://www.copeinc.org/legal-c....nt.html

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

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,21:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:57)
And good news in regards to getting the press bought for rebuilding (that was in worse shape than we thought and had to be fixed as finances allowed) running for a first printing of books/booklets. I can also run it on one of the production machines but only when not busy, which is becoming rare.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......1850324

Good God, you're going to print actual physical books of this stuff??

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,21:12   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2014,21:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:57)
And good news in regards to getting the press bought for rebuilding (that was in worse shape than we thought and had to be fixed as finances allowed) running for a first printing of books/booklets. I can also run it on one of the production machines but only when not busy, which is becoming rare.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......1850324

Good God, you're going to print actual physical books of this stuff??

Why not? It would be the third book I printed. I'm already over a decade overdue, for the next generation book.

--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,21:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,21:05)
Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,20:51)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:31)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2014,02:32)
A red herring is a different concept from reductio ad absurdum, and N. Wells is engaging in the latter, not the former.

When an opponent needs to rely on their philosophy/religion of Naturalism to argue that God is “supernatural” that is their personal religious belief, not mine, nor is it science. It's just another red-herring.

That's not my belief - that's a standard article of christian faith*.

No that is your red-herring that assumes all in the Christian faith follow your philosophy of Naturalism when in fact good number have complained (even legally) about your red-herring dichotomy:

http://www.copeinc.org/legal-c....nt.html

Irrelevant word salad does not get you off the hook here.  Your words explicitly exclude the possibility of a deity being intelligent.  This has nothing to do with my opinions about gods.  Standard christians follow their bible, which claims explicitly that their god is spirit and created all of nature.  You can't get something more supernatural than that, even with your usual abuse of traditional definitions.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,21:32   

The proper phrase is "all-knowing":

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc....knowing

From book/theory and based on a working model of the process:

Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.


--------------
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: Sep. 19 2014,21:40   

Not relevant.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,21:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 19 2014,21:40)
Not relevant.

Biblical expert N.Wells has spoken! All bow to their great wisdom as they ignore what the Bible actually says!!

God, all-knowing (previously covered).
God, present everywhere (as is matter).

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc....rywhere

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

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2014,22:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,21:12)
   
Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2014,21:06)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 19 2014,20:57)
And good news in regards to getting the press bought for rebuilding (that was in worse shape than we thought and had to be fixed as finances allowed) running for a first printing of books/booklets. I can also run it on one of the production machines but only when not busy, which is becoming rare.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......1850324

Good God, you're going to print actual physical books of this stuff??

Why not? It would be the third book I printed. I'm already over a decade overdue, for the next generation book.

Well, why not polish up your ID document and self-publish it as an ebook?  Why spend money on physical resources when everyone reads documents on kindles and the like nowadays?  

After typing this, I noticed your comment over at Sandwalk:

 
Quote
If that's what this forum and others would rather I do with what I have then perhaps I am best off helping the Discovery Institute prove how useless the scientific leadership in charge of this issue actually is, by letting the DI handle distribution to the public schools.

...

After thinking about the new possibilities I'm starting to get excited! I'll link Casey (we're already in contact) to this comment.


Is this really going to happen?  Please say it's going to happen  

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

Pages: (622) < ... 392 393 394 395 396 [397] 398 399 400 401 402 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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