RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 222 223 224 225 226 [227] 228 229 230 231 232 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:13   

From the latest UnderwhelmingEvidence Engineer...
Quote
Dear Uncommon DescentHouse,

I never did believe anything I ever read on your website until just the other night...


Five will get you ten he has a part time job writing letters to Penthouse.  ;)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:22   

Phhhh!

If I gave you 3 hours, a box of party staws, some paper clips and rubber bands, could you build a Fracterial Blagella? Could you? Could You?

SHUT IT, THEN.

Take the 3 hour challenge.

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

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:30   

"It's like saying a black hole simulation is only valid if you subjected the supercomputer to crushing gravitational tides. A volcano simulation is only valid if you threw the computer into the lava."

Curses!!!-there go my NASA and USGS grant applications...you just had to run and tell the world, didn't you?

Well, thanks a lot.....

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:51)
From Underwhelming Evidence (which btw is showing very little activity):
   
Quote
I'm a software engineer with specialties in artificial intelligence and GNC (guidance, navigation, and control) software. I work for an aerospace research and development firm. I used to be a Dawkins-style militant atheist and devout Darwinist, but then I began to think and critically analyze what I believed, and figured out that I was dead wrong about almost everything that ultimately matters.

The intelligent-design movement is very exciting, and it is going to rock the entrenched establishment, which has demonstrated its desperation by resorting to attempts to suppress dissent by any means available. Of course, this won't work in the long run, because reality always has a way of making itself evident in the end.

The reality is that the universe and living systems were designed, and the evidence for this is mounting almost daily within a wide variety of scientific disciplines.

Welcome to the most exciting scientific revolution of the last century!



An engineer with no scientific training sees a political movement composed of engineers, laymen, lawyers, philosophers, which is pretending to do science, has spent $20,000,000 over 15 years and hasn't a single hypothesis, experiment, theory, or peer-reviewed paper to show for it, and which nevertheless tried to insert itself into science classes, and has lost every legal battle that resulted, and gotten school boards thrown out by angry voters, and whose arguments have been ripped apart by dozens of actual, real scientists in the relevant fields, and what's this guy's response? I'm so exited! Victory will be ours!

This movement will never stop providing me with comedy.

You notice that "this guy" is, in fact, Gil Dodgen, of "to make a computer  simulation of an earthquake you need to shake the monitor a lot" fame.  God on a stick, I had no idea that he was actually a "software engineer."

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:43   

I love this part

Quote
Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer


and the programmer? A correctly programmed evolutionary simulation would kill the programmer?

(Desperately tries to resist writing a bunch of Occam's-Aftershave-type comments here)

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:44   

I wonder if his checkers simulation has the following ‘realistic’ features:

Opponent gets bored and leaves
The building you’re in catches fire
Your opponent cheats whilst you take a dump
Game stopped by earthquake / ‘global killer’ meteor / rapture

http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com/

*points and laughs*

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:49   

Quote
(Desperately tries to resist writing a bunch of Occam's-Aftershave-type comments here)



Hey!  I resemble that remark!

Nyuk nyuk nyuk!  Why, soitantly!

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:50   

Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 29 2006,16:35)
You notice that "this guy" is, in fact, Gil Dodgen, of "to make a computer  simulation of an earthquake you need to shake the monitor a lot" fame.  God on a stick, I had no idea that he was actually a "software engineer."

"to make a computer  simulation of an earthquake you need to shake the monitor a lot"? What's that from? Surely you're kidding.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:52   

Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 29 2006,16:35)
You notice that "this guy" is, in fact, Gil Dodgen, of "to make a computer  simulation of an earthquake you need to shake the monitor a lot" fame.  God on a stick, I had no idea that he was actually a "software engineer."

I think I found instructions for a meteorological simulation that he made:

Quote
Place your new meteorological simulation system outside; if you don't put the meteorological simulation system outside, your weather forecast will be unreliable and possibly totally inaccurate. Watch it through a convenient window.

Usually no more than a few seconds, and certainly no more than a minute, are needed to use your new system to check weather conditions:

If it casts a distinct shadow, it's sunny; if it's indistinct, it's partly cloudy or foggy.

Is it wet? Then it's raining.

Did it start rolling and tumbling very fast, quickly moving away from you, and disappearing from view? Then chances are, it's very windy.

Is only the top of it visible above water? Then it's raining very hard. Seek higher ground.

Was your system swept away by swiftly-moving, muddy brown water? Then I'd say it was a flash flood.

If your system is covered with snow, it's snowing.

If it catches on fire, it's very hot and perhaps not a weather phenomenon. Check for nearby mushroom clouds or fast-approaching celestial bodies.


(Credit where credit is due: I snipped it from this site.)

And Aftershave, the Penthouse parody was my work.  Well, actually I cribbed it from some John Prine lyrics.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:00   

Quote
And Aftershave, the Penthouse parody was my work.  Well, actually I cribbed it from some John Prine lyrics.

Sorry, I totally missed the 'House' part of UncommonDescentHouse.  My bad.

Man, this just hasn't been my week around here... :angry:

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:00   

Reading through the comments I see a few nice ones:

Quote
Reciprocating Bill  // Sep 28th 2006 at 9:44 pm

“Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.”

This makes *exactly* as much sense as requiring that a supercomputer simulating a hurricane blow over tables and chairs, drench the operator, and cause widespread power outages.

You have forgotten what Turing demonstrated: the power of computation lies in the independence of computational algorithms from the physical substrate upon which the computation is instantiated.

Comment by Reciprocating Bill — September 28, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Quote
 7. Tom English  // Sep 29th 2006 at 12:30 am

Teaching computer science students from the undergraduate to the doctoral level, I encountered quite a few who were excellent programmers, but who could not begin to comprehend the notion of a model. The concept is simply too abstract for some people. They never catch on to it.

A simulation model of evolution executes on a computer, but the computer, its operating system, and the runtime system of the programming language in which the simulation was written are not part of the model. Their function is to execute precisely the evolutionary model specified by the programmer. Any environmental cataclysms are simulated by the program itself, and are not a matter of failure of the computer hardware or the software operating system. That is, the environment is simulated by a properly functioning computer. The computer itself is not the simulated environment.

I say categorically, as someone who has worked in evolutionary computation for 15 years, that Gil does not understand what he is talking about. This is not to say that he is trying to mislead anyone. It is simply clear that he has never grasped the nature of a simulation model. His comments reflect the sort of concrete thinking I have tried to help many students grow beyond, often without success.

Comment by Tom English — September 29, 2006 @ 12:30 am

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:28   

Over at UD Bill "Bonecrusher" Dembski crows:
 
Quote
I did not withdraw from the Dover case — the Thomas More Law Center fired me over a perceived conflict of interest relating to my role as academic editor of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (the publisher of the book in question — OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE). I was frankly looking forward to being deposed by the ACLU and staring them down at the trial. Perhaps another trial is in the offing, and Ken and I can finally have our day in court.




"I'll fight ya!  I'll fight ya!"

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,14:19   

I was looking forward to helping Stephen Harvey of Pepper Hamilton depose Dembski. But instead I just gave a talk to the biology department at Baylor and drove by the Intelligent Design Pit Bar-B-Que at Riesel, TX. Jeff Shallit was scheduled to be there, too, so I missed out on quite the get-together.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,14:28   

Yeah, I'm not sure what the Bill and Ken thing was about. If Dembski gets anywhere near a courtroom where the topic somehow has "specified complexity" in the mix, my guess is that Jeff Shallit will be on hand. If Bill is talking about Ken Miller, I suspect that whatever court will figure out pretty quickly that Bill's fields of expertise don't overlap those of Ken Miller, leading to the conclusion that Ken's testimony would be considered unrebutted. Shallit's critique of Dembski, on the other hand, would be a direct rebuttal of Dembski's claims from within the field of mathematics.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,14:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 29 2006,20:28)
Shallit's critique of Dembski, on the other hand, would be a direct rebuttal of Dembski's claims from within the field of mathematics.

oh man that's good stuff

Quote
1 Dembski is not a scientist
2 Dembski is not a renowned mathematician
3 Dembski's work is extensively criticized in the liter-
ature, but he rarely responds
4 Dembski's method for inferring design is neither ac-
cepted by the scientific community at large, nor use-
ful to science
5 Specified complexity" and "complex specified in-
formation" are not valid or accepted notions
6 Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information" is
not a law


7 Conclusions
William Dembski has not made a significant contribution to a mathematical or scientific
understanding of "design". His work is not regarded as significant by information theo-
rists, mathematicians, statisticians, or computer scientists. He does not present his work
in the generally-accepted fora for results in these fields. His mathematical work is riddled
with errors and inconsistencies that he has not acknowledged; it is not mathematics, but
pseudomathematics.



Ah, I need a cigarette.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,19:21   

Bwhahahahahahahahaha
 
Quote
I(Dembski) was frankly looking forward to being deposed by the ACLU and staring them down at the trial. Perhaps another trial is in the offing, and Ken and I can finally have our day in court.


Oh yeah?

Lets see how that phone call goes

Ring Ring:

William A. Dembski: 'lo

DI lawyer: Is that you Bill?

WAD: Who's this?

DIL: Johnnie Cochran... Bill, Howie decided to get serious, we got that court case you're itching to get onto.
WAD: Great!!!
DIL: Are you available in Ohio next May?
WAD: I'll check my diary.....yup.
DIL: Good, now what do you need.
WAD: Oh $200 per hour should do it.
DIL: AH Bill...I'm doing this pro bono but Howie said $200ph is OK.
WAD:Oh.......er......ah.....There is a minimum rate of 100 hours.
DIL:Hmmmm...I see no problem with that.
WAD:...uh.....I'll need a couple of research assistants.
DIL:See if you can get some interns.
WAD:I did, but ..ah...they....they tend to be a little single minded about the designer thingy and don't seem to be objective enough.
DIL: So what do you suggest?
WAD:Another $300 per hour.
DIL:Ah .....look Bill...I'll call you back.


--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,22:32   

So I now notice that the wikipedia banned books list has the vandalism lock on it.

Heh

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,04:23   

It almost makes me want to go and change the Wiki censorship page.  :-)

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,04:29   

Wow!  They've finally noticed that
underwhelming evidence is up and running.  Get with it, folks!  :-)

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:11   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,16:56)
Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.

If you exhumed your head from your nethers you might notice that David Heddle does not particularly care for PT.

By the way, Chattie, I am still waiting for the adverse academic repercussions you warned me about a year ago to materialize.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:12   

Woa, this looks like an underground website made by some dissident ex-engineer or hacker.
I already love it.  :p

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:19   

I posted this to UD in response to David Heddle's banning:

The heavy-handed suppression of criticism here is disappointing, to say the least.

I doubt it will ever make it out of the queue.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:22   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 30 2006,13:11)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,16:56)
Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB.

If you exhumed your head from your nethers you might notice that David Heddle does not particularly care for PT.

You are #### right he doesn't. David Heddle is a Christian.

However he is honest about his religious beliefs and feels let-down by the idiotic claims of Dembski's crew.

EDIT:- Never mind.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:09   

UnderwhelmingEvidence.com:
Quote
Hi from Mark in Pittsburgh
Hi, I'm Mark Nutter and I'm a freelance writer from the greater Pittsburgh area. I read about this on Uncommon Descent and thought I'd sign up, just to share my thoughts about Intelligent Design and see how things go.

I personally do believe in Intelligent Design, though I'm still quite skeptical about the ability to scientifically demonstrate it, for two reasons. One, I don't see much work being done to advance ID as a scientific endeavor (it seems like most of the effort is being directed at discrediting a vaguely-defined "Darwinism"). And two, the possibility of scientific evidence for ID is an idea with significant theological and apologetic implications.

Richard Dawkins' new book The God Delusion argues that if God is real, we should find much more evidence for Him than is actually found. The apologetic defense against this argument is that there must be some reason (possibly beyond human understanding) why God cannot or should not provide us with verifiable evidence of His existence.

If that were the case, though, then ID cannot provide verifiable evidence of God's existence. If it does, that means Dawkins is right: there is no reason why God cannot or should not provide such evidence, and therefore it's absence is significant. (I'm not talking here about obscure, esoteric "evidence" that requires a PhD in science or math to discuss, I'm talking about ordinary, accessible evidence like the "has God shown up for anyone to see lately?" kind.)

I think there's a real problem with elevating science to the point where God needs science's permission in order to exist, and I'm afraid that the modern ID movement strikes me very much as an attempt to do just that (i.e. to get science's permission for God to exist). I'm proud to say that my God does not need to make a crutch out of science!
 


Hi I'm Mark from Pitsburgh and I'm about to get banned.

UPDATE:
Maybe he won't get banned. He goes on to make a Grade A Intelligent Design move: he make up a new jargony term and pretends it supports design.

Quote
My Design theory
In my intro quote, I said I'm skeptical about using ID to scientifically identify design. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm opposed to ID in principle, and in fact I've done some work on my own theory of intelligent design. I haven't published it before, so I thought I'd share it here.

My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD. Don't let the big words fool you, all it really means is "how far away are we from knowing who did it?"

It's not scientifically exact, but it does help us be a little more scientific about how we decide whether or not something is intentionally designed. (I like "intentional design" better than "intelligent design," since "intelligent" can mean different things).


Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Ontogenetic Depth, now Cognitive Distance...

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:17   

Too few ID blogs for your liking? Wish those IDers would stop performing experiments and writing papers and do some blogging?

Well, you get your wish:

Quote
Hello OE Community!!!

Again, I'd like to welcome all of you to Overwhelming Evidence! In my last post, I invitied you to visit my personal website at www.buddy4u.com/view/?x=safe&u=SC4978 or my blog at www.doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com

Today, I'd like to invite you to another network for students, similar to Overwhelming Evidence. The Evolution Questions Network was launched on August 1, 2006 and exists to help students who face difficult questions about evolution and intelligent design in science classes and difficult teachers who might be hostile to their views. The EQN is here to help you, give you solid, honest answers to your questions, and supply you with material that might be helpful in your science class or just for your own reading.

The EQN is hosted on five of the most popular networks for students today. The reason for this is to that I can reach more students across the world. Here are the sites:

MYSPACE: www.myspace.com/evolutionquestions
XANGA: www.xanga.com/evolutionquestions
LIVEJOURNAL: http://evoquestions.livejournal.com
BLOGSPOT: www.evolutionquestions.blogspot.com
FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500648314&hiq=evolution%2Cquestions

I hope you will visit us, ask any questions you might have, and let us help you over at EQN. Thanks again for visiting Overwhelming Evidence and my blog here.

Sola veritas,

Samuel Chen


   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,13:39   

Interesting. In the "Overwhelming Evidence" forums, ( http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/forum ) there seem to be more posts on "politics" than "science."  I wonder why?  ??? *snort*
I hereby dub thee the "Overweening Vanity" site.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,16:50   

I found this to be a pretty poor site (nauseating was more like it-I should not try to eat at the computer.) I could not get the links on this particular post to work. In addition, there was almost no science. Okay, there was no science at all.

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,17:52   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 30 2006,13:19)
I posted this to UD in response to David Heddle's banning:

The heavy-handed suppression of criticism here is disappointing, to say the least.

I doubt it will ever make it out of the queue.

I stand corrected.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,19:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 30 2006,17:09)
UnderwhelmingEvidence.com:
<snippi-poos>

UPDATE:
Maybe he won't get banned. He goes on to make a Grade A Intelligent Design move: he make up a new jargony term and pretends it supports design.

Quote
My Design theory
In my intro quote, I said I'm skeptical about using ID to scientifically identify design. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm opposed to ID in principle, and in fact I've done some work on my own theory of intelligent design. I haven't published it before, so I thought I'd share it here.

My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD. Don't let the big words fool you, all it really means is "how far away are we from knowing who did it?"

It's not scientifically exact, but it does help us be a little more scientific about how we decide whether or not something is intentionally designed. (I like "intentional design" better than "intelligent design," since "intelligent" can mean different things).


Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, Ontogenetic Depth, now Cognitive Distance...

He'll get banned for that: if almost IDer calculates CD honestly, they'll find it's zero, and it was the butler that did it.

Or God.  I can never remember who Agatha Christie framed.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,23:21   

the "recent posts" list is funny

   * God is beyond Understanding
     4 hours 59 min ago
   * Simulations are Wrong
     5 hours 1 min ago
   * Science Teachers just Perpetuate Lies
     5 hours 6 min ago
   * Great Thoughts TheMAN!
     5 hours 14 min ago
   * Denyse is Right
     5 hours 30 min ago
   * Another point
     3 days 16 hours ago
   * Easily Established
     3 days 16 hours ago
   * In a nutshell, undiluted
     3 days 19 hours ago
   * Charles Thaxton, for
     5 days 4 hours ago
   * The only reason that Darwin
     11 weeks 2 days ago

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

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 222 223 224 225 226 [227] 228 229 230 231 232 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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