RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (41) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2016,14:09   

I have only put on ignore thos trolls that have produced no productive posts at all.

I wouldn't put fifthmonarchyman or UprightBiped or gpuccio on ignore, because they do try to make reasoned arguments. Even Sal.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2016,21:05   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 02 2016,14:09)
I have only put on ignore those trolls that have produced no productive posts at all.

I wouldn't put fifthmonarchyman or UprightBiped or gpuccio on ignore, because they do try to make reasoned arguments. Even Sal.

fifthmonarchyman? fifth-fucking-monarchyman "tr[ies] to make reasoned arguments"? No. At best, being maximally charitable, fmm makes exactly 1 (one) argument that might be considered sorta-kinda reasonable if you tilt your head and squint at it just right, and that argument is purely, entirely presuppositional.

I don't consider presuppositional argumentation (which can be boiled down to I'll gladly discuss the validity of my premises, but first you must concede that my premises are valid) to be 'reasonable'. YMMV.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2016,09:38   

fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,07:20   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2016,09:38)
fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.

Naah, JoeG is a cross between an ELIZA bot and an 8-track tape. He has a small number of catchphrases which he spews forth in response to textual stimuli.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,09:28   

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 08 2016,05:20)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2016,09:38)
fmm's a dweeb. All that species-not-a-problem-for-an-atemporal being stuff was just ridiculous.

But my only reason for putting anyone on Ignore is bandwidth. Even Gallien tries to make reasoned arguments, he's just not very good at it. He is (thank Heaven for small mercies) briefer than KF, another repetitious berk who would be straight on Ignore if he showed up, but even so there's just too much of the same old shit.

Naah, JoeG is a cross between an ELIZA bot and an 8-track tape. He has a small number of catchphrases which he spews forth in response to textual stimuli.

An ELIZA with fucking Tourette's.

--------------
"[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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,13:11   

What is it about Joe G and Fridays?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,13:28   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,11:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?

It could be
Your position can't explain Fridays

or it might be
ID is not anti-Friday

or possibly
There is no theory of Fridays

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,13:44   



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,14:57   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?

Nobody ever said 'Thank Fuck it's Joe G'.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2016,19:39   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 08 2016,14:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?

Nobody ever said 'Thank Fuck it's Joe G'.

More like, "Thank? FuckNo! It's JoeG!"

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2016,07:29   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2016,19:11)
What is it about Joe G and Fridays?

Great entertainment! It's fun to watch a professional phylogeneticist calmly and clearly 'defend' his discipline against Lilluputian arrows. $10,000 bets yet to surface.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2016,04:38   

The urbane and unflappable William J Murray - the man who does not experience moral outrage - will be back shortly, after his alter ego has let off a bit of steam.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2016,08:47   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 17 2016,10:38)
The urbane and unflappable William J Murray - the man who does not experience moral outrage - will be back shortly, after his alter ego has let off a bit of steam.

Cut him some slack.

Aliens are probing his wife's bottom on a nightly basis; that would test anyone's patience.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2016,13:20   

Frankie, who is neither Joe nor Virgil, is attempting to do for probability theory what Joe and/or Virgil did for set theory:
Quote
Quote
DNA_Jock:
Joe, I am not convinced that you even know what a conditional probability is.

Could you please help me out here,

how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?

Thanks

In this context P(T|H) is the probability that materialistic processes can produce something T, given the relevant materialistic hypothesis. P(H|T) would be about a Player getting a Hat Trick.

All mathematics so far.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2016,13:27   

What are the odds of that?

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,11:20   

Another greatest hit!!  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":
Quote
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.

True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.

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

  
Vasha



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2016

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,11:23   

Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,11:40   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,19:20)
Another greatest hit!!  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":
 
Quote
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.

True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.

Add to that

Quote
Frankie: P(H|T) is not part of Dembski’s paper and because of that irrelevant.


LOL that makes his notpologies seem reasonable irrelevant.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,13:31   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 17 2016,09:40)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,19:20)
Another greatest hit!!  Up there with "CSI of caek", "ice is not water" and "frequency = wavelength":
 
Quote
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…

If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.

Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.

True story - many years ago, on the way to a doctor's appointment, I came across Thomas Bayes' memorial in Bunhill Fields (what are the odds of that?).  If I was still living in London, I'd be hearing spinning today.

Add to that

Quote
Frankie: P(H|T) is not part of Dembski’s paper and because of that irrelevant.


LOL that makes his notpologies seem reasonable irrelevant.

P(nonsense|Joe) = 1

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,15:30   

Moar!
Quote
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science

I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,18:34   

Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.

Depending on the specifics of that "godlike being", there may not be a refutation of that idea.

Consider omphalism, the notion that the universe was created a relatively short while ago, complete with a vast array of self-consistent internal evidence which falsely indicates that the universe is significantly older than it actually is. Since omphalism explicitly presumes that evidence is irrelevant, how could the proposition of a deceitful, omphalos-type creator be refuted by evidence?

Theistic evolution—the idea that God did it, and mainstream science is telling us how He did it—provides another general class of creator that cannot be refuted by evidence. If the Creator posited in Planetfall is the sort of Creator Who works Its wonders by methods that cannot be distinguished from the operation of impersonal natural law, evidence is, again, incapable of refuting that sort of Creator.

The above said and acknowledged, teleological convergent evolution is an idea that is not well-supported by evidence, and that can only be made to appear scientifically valid if one goes out of one's way to manufacture rationalizations for it.

The basic problem is, the universe does not operate by strictly deterministic principles. Which means you can't predict which mutations will occur in a genealogical lineage, any more than you can predict what sort of future environmental challenges will be faced by members of that lineage. So if the Creator posited in Planetfall just kinda seeded life and went away for however-many years, exactly what would prevent that seeded life from acquiring mutations that generate traits which were not foreseen by that Creator? What would ensure that the descendants of that seeded life were never faced with environmental conditions which cause that life to go extinct? What would ensure that the descendants of that seeded life never encountered selective pressures that eliminate traits which the Creator intended Its seeded life to develop?

Well, maybe the Creator posited in Planetfall has, all along, been observing the seeded life It created, and making adjustments as needed when things don't go according to Its plan…

TL;DR—The bare notion of a (generic, nonspecified) Creator cannot be refuted by evidence. But for any Creator that has identifiable attributes, it may be possible to refute that particular Creator-hypothesis.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2016,20:48   

So what you're saying is that for a claim to be refuted, that claim has to actually say something? :p

  
RumraketR



Posts: 19
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2016,07:54   

Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.

The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.

It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.

No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.

Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2016,07:57   

Quote (RumraketR @ Mar. 18 2016,08:54)
Quote (Vasha @ Mar. 17 2016,11:23)
Hi,

Can someone point me to a concise refutation of teleological convergent evolution, the idea that starting with a simple DNA-based cell, life would be bound and destined to evolve to some organism very similar to humans in both behavior and appearance? I searched TalkOrigins but couldn't find anything directly relevant.

I would like to link to it in my review of the science fiction novel Planetfall, which is based on that premise. It depicts a godlike being seeding multiple planets with DNA, and (as the being intended) life on all of them producing something very humanlike, at which point that species is deemed worthy to meet its creator.

It is kind of a weird novel; it seems to depict people who believe in a cosmic destiny of humankind as being both extremely stupid and right, and the development of our species as simultaneously leaving us as venal and vicious as ever in the future, and constantly ascending to divine worthiness. I will have to look at the book more carefully to be sure I haven't misunderstood the author's philosophical arguments, but at least I can address those parts of it that misrepresent evolution.

The claim is as closed to expermentally refuted as one can hope for, by the Lenski long-term evolution experiment, where an originally clonal (as in genetically identical) population of cells, run independently as 12 lineages but subjected to the same type of environment for the same amount of time, managed to produce wildly different results in all 12 lineages.

It seems very hard to explain why, if life is following some kind of pre-planned trajectory, it evolves in random directions when tested with genetically identical individuals subjected to the same environmental selective pressures.

No doubt the die-hard believer will come up with some amazing ad-hoc rationalization for this, such as "all paths eventually lead to the same result despite diverging along the way" or some shit. This is just what it is though, ad-hoc rationalizations they are coming up with to avoid conceding their pet theory is falsified.

Heck, even the existence of extant biodiversity seems to constitute a falsification of the claim. Massively ironically, a great question to ask is, if all life and all evolutionary trajectories are destined to produce human-like intelligent organisms, why are there still bacteria/jellyfish/slugs/fungi/rectal-worms/monkeys?

And why have all of those continued to mutate and evolve past the point where the "intended line" split off?
It's not just that all the predecessors are still around, they've kept evolving long after the 'point' of their existence has been passed.
tl;dr:  all existent lines are as evolved as all other.  Picking any one as the 'goal' is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2016,11:11   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,15:30)
Moar!
Quote
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science

I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.

Our resident theoretical physicist has been telling the statisticians that he finds negative probabilities useful in his current lines of research.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2016,11:30   

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2016,23:30)
Moar!
       
Quote
To recap- P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H. The | stands for given. P(H|T) would be the probability of event H given event T

If P(H|T) = 0 then it proves the claim to be untestable.

So I have to retract what I said above as I see the relevance. P(T|H) cannot be calculated because P(H|T) = 0. And evolutionism is not science

I expect we'll get a "not even zero" soon.

Joe Frankie goes one better and slaps down Cromwell's rule (after all he is a living example of it) and now it's "not even one". He must be bipolar.

     
Quote
Frankie Post authorMarch 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm
   
Quote
(DNA_Jock March 18, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Frankie finds a definition of conditional probability:
P(T|H) is the probability of event T given event H.

   
Quote

Frankie: quotes keiths

               
Quote
(keiths) the probability of T given nothing is just the unconditional probability P(T).)


That is incorrect. The probability of ATP synthase is 1 as it exists. So what you are saying doesn’t make any sense at all.


No Frankie, keiths is correct. Perhaps the word “given” is giving you trouble. It does not mean “given the following tools”, rather it means “if we assume that the following is true”, so p(event|nothing) = p(event)
Always.
Maybe I was wrong about the red-letter day.


LoL! And another one who cannot make a case. The conditional probability remains, so keiths is wrong. The probability of T given nothing would be 0, not the probability of T, which exists and must be explained by something.

Seeing that you were so wrong yesterday and then day before, I see no reason to believe you today


ETA Joe math is so useful the probability of the sun rising yesterday will be zero given the probability Joe understands nothing about conditional probability

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 20 2016,22:09   

Wow.  Mung got caught in a rather egregious example of quote mining (of Lawrence Krauss) today.  About half a dozen people called him on it.  Rather than apologize he's been throwing a hissy fit all afternoon because supposedly it is against the rules for anyone to point out he was dishonestly quote mining.

What a major league dick.    :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: Mar. 21 2016,17:18   

linky?

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2016,20:20   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2016,10:18)
linky?

Pardon me for stepping in OA, but the fun starts here (comment 16). The general suspicion that Mung is quotemining is pretty well confirmed by keiths at comment 37. Lots more comments follow in the Moderation Issues (3) thread.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2016,08:51   

Wow. Good going Mung.

   
  1224 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (41) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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