RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,10:53   

Quote
Would you believe me if I told you that I graduated from high school at North High in North St. Paul (go Polars!. . .or something).  

No way!

"Hail, Polars, one and all, we're there for you/
fight, fight for North St. Paul/we'll see you through..."

or something. What year? I hope you didn't know me then for the big (well, little) ugly dork I was...I almost won "shyest" for my class except not enough people knew my name...  ;)

   
Quote
How come you still get to post at UD anyhow?

Beats me. In my experience people don't give up easily on trying to save me.

[Quoting no one in particular from N. St. Paul]: "If you just try hard enough, Kristine, you can become a totally different person! Like everyone else. Because you're special! God loves you just as you are, and He can change you, every atom!" Wow, that's not confusing or anything, right?

BTW, isn't Waco, Texas where Dr. Pepper was invented? Appropriate. Be an original! Drink Dr. Pepper! (Like everybody else.)  ???

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,11:42   

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 09 2006,20:24)
However, unlike flies, but like people, Sea urchins are Deuterostomates (mouth second). Flies are Protostomates (mouth first). This refers to the way the mouth and anus develop in the embryo. If you developed like a fly, you would eat with the 'wrong' end of your digestive tube. And visa versa.

Interestingly enough, creationists/IDists regularly spew shit from their mouths.  They must by Protosomates, thereby disproving evolution in one fell swoop! :D

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,12:21   

News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

So why don't they line us up against a wall and shoot us already?

I hereby take my leave of this thread, because I have no further interest in visiting UD or reading what they have to say. I don't need their crap. Besides, I have a final to work on.

Just unbelieveable. If I want emotional abuse I'll move back to good old North St. Paul.

See you guys.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,13:09   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,10:53)
Quote
Would you believe me if I told you that I graduated from high school at North High in North St. Paul (go Polars!. . .or something).  

No way!

"Hail, Polars, one and all, we're there for you/
fight, fight for North St. Paul/we'll see you through..."

or something. What year? I hope you didn't know me then for the big (well, little) ugly dork I was...I almost won "shyest" for my class except not enough people knew my name...  ;)

I graduated in 2001 (yes, yes I'm a youngin).  I really only lived in North St. Paul for a year--my parents moved there in 2000, I graduated HS in 2001, and then moved to Chicago for College.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,13:21   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,12:21)
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

Oh, so maybe I should cancel my trip to Goodwill that I had scheduled for today.

Quote
So why don't they line us up against a wall and shoot us already?

I hereby take my leave of this thread, because I have no further interest in visiting UD or reading what they have to say. I don't need their crap. Besides, I have a final to work on.

Just unbelieveable. If I want emotional abuse I'll move back to good old North St. Paul.

See you guys.


The trick is to not get mad at their inanity.  The trick is to laugh at the foolishness that gets displayed.  To laugh at the sheer utter tard that spews forth from them, and realize that they don't even know how tardalicious they are being!  That just makes it all the better.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,15:34   

Quote (GCT @ Dec. 10 2006,13:21)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,12:21)
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

Oh, so maybe I should cancel my trip to Goodwill that I had scheduled for today.



Because the stingy atheists didn't donate clothes for you to buy, eh?  :)

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,15:55   

I see Dave is in good form today:

Quote

DaveScot said...
I'm afraid only 14 instances "spravid" in 80 comments isn't good enough to get me here. John's obsession with me is obviously waning. It's up to y'all to get him properly wound up if you want me to contribute here at Grand Central Homo Station.


(Dave's italics are a splendid touch.)
:)

Ooo, but John ain't havin' none of it:

Quote
Speaking of "Grand Central Homo Station," it seems to me that Spravid Dinger's constant bragging about how every woman he has ever met wants to have his baby sounds to me like latent homosexuality. Real men don't ever talk like that.


Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!! That's the stuff!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,22:35   

Okay, okay...people want me back. Well, thanks.
 
Quote
The trick is to not get mad at their inanity.  The trick is to laugh at the foolishness that gets displayed.  To laugh at the sheer utter tard that spews forth from them, and realize that they don't even know how tardalicious they are being!  That just makes it all the better.

I think I have a pretty good sense of humor but when I reply seriously (and with too much personal detail, because I'm a naive idiot), I feel like a fool who has poured out her guts, obscenely, in front of others, only to be shot down. The supreme irony is that I'm waiting to hear if my sponsor child in the Philippines survived the typhoon.

No one over there believes in God any more than I do, I have concluded. Religion is just a way for them to win an argument by any means. However I do believe that Dembski is sincere about his faith but he's obviously not involved in that blog.

I hear that Denyse may be leaving, too (from a notoriously unreliable source).

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
stevestory



Posts: 10374
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,23:36   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,23:35)
I hear that Denyse may be leaving, too

To spend more time with her 48 other blogs, perhaps.

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,00:49   

Arden, what is your newest avatar?  It's too small for me to make it out exactly, which is a relief, because it looks to me like a mutant tree-beaver falling off a limb.

Hmmm.  Is that a depiction of Dembski's academic career?  Or Salvador's latest (1998) encounter with reality?

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,02:26   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,22:35)
Okay, okay...people want me back. Well, thanks.

Good luck on the final anyhow.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,10:33   

Interesting article over at Red State Rabble today - seems Behe has had his feet to the fire about his testimony that astrology fits his definition of a scientific theory.

http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com...rius.html

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,11:20   

Quote
To spend more time with her 48 other blogs, perhaps.


:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,11:44   

This comment, posted on this thread, bears a bit of rebuttal as it bears a germ of truth (and a load of crap):

   
Quote
43. crandaddy
// Dec 10th 2006 at 5:15 pm

A materialist description of consciousness does appear impossible. To see why, let’s consider what consciousness is. Consciousness is first-personhood; it is experience, itself. In order to offer a materialistic account of it, one would have to offer a third-person account which fully encapsulates the concept of first-personhood. But how is this possible in principle? I can see no way that it is. Consciousness is an intentional state which means it possesses the quality of being of or about something. But how can one material state be of or about any other material state? How can any material state have any intrinsic meaning at all? The very notion of meaning, itself, loses its meaning if materialism is true. I fail to see how materialism does anything but completely and utterly implode as a coherent rational belief.

Crandaddy here describes a genuine conundrum within contemporary philosophy, and the philosophy of science, although he muddles things just a bit, in that intentionality (the "aboutness" of mental states) presents a problem distinct from that of consciousness. But he has the right idea. The question of how intentionality and reference, particularly intentionality that has a normative component, can be mapped into a scientific description of the natural world has presented an enormous conundrum to contemporary philosophy (and a correspondingly huge, thoughtful literature), with no solution in sight.

What Crandaddy misses is that Intelligent Design provides absolutely no help in addressing this conundrum. None. Zip. Nada. If we were to stipulate that each of us, as physical and biological systems, had been designed and intricately crafted by The Maker herself to exhibit the states of consciousness and intentionality that we do, we would be not one whit closer to understanding how normative reference (meaning) relates to physical causation than we are now. ID gives no help whatsoever to this problem.  The problem presents itself regardless of the origins of the physical/biological system displaying intentionality.

What Crandaddy really wants to say, as he attacks naturalistic models of human cognition, is that a non-material (spiritual) dimension is required to account for the normative intentionality and consciousness we display. But that gets us no further than before (and indeed sets back the discussion a few centuries).  How do "souls" (detachable ghosts) implement conciousness and intentionality? Would he like to specify the ghost-state transitions that correspond to normative reasoning?  Does he really want to argue that this occurs independently of the human brain and the physical causation intantiated therein?  

The fact is that nothing whatever can be said about the spiritual components Crandaddy would add to the current materialist conception of cognition that actually brings us any closer to the problem of intentionality in the natural world, and neither he nor anyone else has the slightest notion of how to investigate these questions starting with such assumptions.  

That is worth noting.

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

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

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

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,11:53   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 11 2006,11:44)
What Crandaddy really wants to say, as he attacks naturalistic models of human cognition, is that a non-material (spiritual) dimension is required to account for the normative intentionality and consciousness we display.  But that gets us no further than before (and indeed sets back the discussion a few centuries).  

Not necessarily a few centuries  :)

The way I read Crandaddy, he is more into phenomenology than into "ghost-in-the-machine" thinking, so only about one century.


- pwe

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2190
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,13:54   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 11 2006,11:44)
This comment, posted on this thread, bears a bit of rebuttal as it bears a germ of truth (and a load of crap):
...

That is worth noting.

I think you missed an h there.

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)

   
steve_h



Posts: 534
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,16:34   

Quote
ID gives no help whatsoever to this problem.
Nonsense!  The ID version of howstuffworks gives intellectually satisfying answers to a wide range of problems:
Q1) How does consciousness work? A) It is designed.
Q2) How does an atom bomb work? A) It is designed.
Q3) How does my computer work?  A) Designed, designed, designed, designed.
Q4) Why do my knees and back hurt? A) They are well designed.

The unrelated discipline of religion, gives additional insights to Q4:  Without any challenges, the world would be hideously boring and meaningless (Gil on self-refuting argumentation). Hmm, isn't he describing Heaven there?

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,17:24   

Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 11 2006,11:20)
Quote
To spend more time with her 48 other blogs, perhaps.


:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!

I've heard that the instances of men wearing goatees and the sale of pitchforks have been on the rise in the last twenty years.  Perhaps, and I think Denyse might be able to come up with the supporting article, it's due to the a movement away from Christian values as men fall victim to the control of Satan.

Least, that's what I heard anyways......


;-)

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,19:16   

Quote
Good luck on the final anyhow.

Thanks mcc, I'm two brandy-cokes from being finished. :p

 
Quote
I've heard that the instances of men wearing goatees and the sale of pitchforks have been on the rise in the last twenty years.  Perhaps, and I think Denyse might be able to come up with the supporting article, it's due to the a movement away from Christian values as men fall victim to the control of Satan.

Yeah, the sale of pitchforks coincides with the explosion of belly dancing in the late 1990s--early 2000s. Way to expose my evil plot, Steverino!

Geez, no wonder. They're onto me at UD.  ;)  (I really mean it, I can't look. I'm not going over there. Are they discussing unicorns again? Grown people, for pity's sake.)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,21:48   

Bwahahaha.

ID "theorist" fails to cite bible correctly:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1851

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,22:51   

Quote
The unrelated discipline of religion, gives additional insights to Q4:  Without any challenges, the world would be hideously boring and meaningless (Gil on self-refuting argumentation). Hmm, isn't he describing Heaven there?

Okay...yes I'm weak...peeking at Gildodgen's assertion:
 
Quote
If I were the perfect designer I would invent a perfect world in which nothing could possibly ever go wrong or present any challenges or adversity. But then my world would be hideously boring and meaningless (and there would be nothing to learn, because learning takes effort, and effort means challenge and adversity), so I would no longer be the perfect designer of a perfect world.

Dang that's brilliant. Just Nobel Prize stuff. Bring on the bad design, then!

Is he describing God here? Dembski says that God is perfect. Uh-oh, He must be bored, I wonder what He's doing. Gee, it's so quiet--and we know He's up there!  :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,02:52   

Quote

:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!


If you read her er... piece carefully, you'll see it's worse than you think:    
Quote
What's the difference between the original 400,000 statistic and the updated 26,000 figure? Primarily, it's that the new study uses more recent data. The 400,000 number took data from as long ago as 1948 and didn't adjust for improved medical care.


So you see, obesity isn't dangerous because improved medical science can save you from most of the diseases it causes.  This is ID Logic™

She does have one comment relative to the ID movement in her piece, though:    
Quote
It's said that a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.


How true, how true.

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,03:57   

bFast blunders into Denton: (from Comment # 6)
             
Quote
I still find his discussion of the cytochrome C dilemma to be a compelling case for what amounts to a “copyright signature” in the DNA. His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community.


Mario A. Lopez conveniently gives us a look at a portion of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis which contains the error.

A few moments googling for Denton cytochrome c brings up a page by Gert Korthof which describes Denton's error and even draws nice pictures.  (Scroll down to "Remarkably Schwabe repeats Michael Denton(1985)'s illustration of cytochrome differences" to see the pretty pictures and also get a taste of ID's plagiarism problem.)

Without posting pretty pictures, Denton is amazed that horses, pigeons, tunas, silkmoths, wheat and yeast all have cytochrome c molecules that are equally different from bacteria!!  Denton apparently believes that yeast cytochrome c should be the closest to bacteria, because yeast are so much like bacteria, and then wheat should be next closest because wheat is more different from bacteria than yeast and so on with silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses.

Denton's logic would be sound IF all those organisms were descended from modern bacteria, but of course they are not.  The common ancestor of yeast, wheat, silkmoths, tunas, pigeons and horses split off from bacteria several billion years ago and the cytochrome c of bacteria and the other organisms have been picking up mutations independently from each other ever since.

Thus we see why, "His case seems to be badly misunderstood by a very dismissive scientific community."  Blunders do tend to be dismissed by the scientific community.

I remember when Denton's "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" came out twenty years ago and he was roundly criticized for this and other blunders.  A simple Google search will pull up some of those criticisms, but searching for evidence that contradicts an ID assertion does not fall under the definition of "research" as used in the ID and Creationist communities.

Had they succumbed to the temptation to test their ideas before posting, the same Google search described above finds the posting referred to above
AND This one from the NCSE AND This one at Talk Origins all on the first page of results.

And of course, even more thorough research would have found Denton's following book, "Nature's Destiny", in which he takes back most of what he wrote in "Theory in Crisis".  But that's asking a little bit too much of ID, I guess, especially of Salvadore who started the thread.

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,04:49   

So, Dave has a post with the "alternate title": "The Sound of the Tree of Life Exploding."  This is a companion piece, one supposes, to The Sound of Circular Reasoning Exploding and The Sound of a Nested Hierarchy Shattering.

A philosophical question: If a judge's gavel falls in a courtroom, and no creationist wishes to hear it, did it really make a sound?

Coming soon, The Sound of One Tard Crapping.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1400
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,07:56   

Here is a thread for anyone who would like to debate the UD thread and is prevented or inhibited by the moderation policy there. If anyone would like to give the Uders a headsup that would be great. (Chris Hyland, Bob O'H, Kristine?)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,09:14   

Quote

Is he describing God here? Dembski says that God is perfect.


God is perfect at all times. Except when He's not. But even then He's still perfect. Got it?  :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Jake



Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,10:41   

Man, they're still banging on about Kitzmiller versus Dover. How is whining on about a year-old court decision supposed to advance the science of ID?

Recently Ive noticed more and more that the ID crowd have basically stopped producing new mathematical models, critiques of evolution etc., and have focussed more and more upon selling the ones they already have. In this respect they remind me very much of the YECs. Once a critique has been written, no matter how bad it is and how quickly is is evicerated, that critique is considered unimpeachable and totally correct in all but perhaps very minor respects. Criticism is all but ignored.

I reckon they feel they have all the arguments they need by now, and simply have to keep repeating them until people finally get it.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,11:02   

Quote
God is perfect at all times. Except when He's not. But even then He's still perfect. Got it?

Check.

I mean, check please! Because I’ve eaten enough bull**** now and I think I’m going to barf. (No wonder obesity is a virtue.) :p

Quote
is prevented or inhibited by the moderation policy there.

I’m not prevented (and I’m certainly not inhibited!;). I stalked away from that thread, and haven’t gone back to see if one person stood up for me (probably not) because it just pushes my buttons to have the “without God you’re evil” crap thrown at me again by a bunch of finger-shaking prudes.

I must say if they want to pass themselves off as interested in “the science” they should make a concerted effort not to sound like some of my Sunday School teachers, who certainly never inspired me to want to be like them.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,12:19   

Hooligan dons a red shirt and beams down to Planet UD:  
Quote
Your take on Judge Jones concerns me Mr. Dembski. Here a judge listens to the evidence, makes a judgement in agreement with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented by the ACLU. Now suddenly he is a narcissitic putz!?! Just a few months ago you had agreed to make an effort to conduct yourself in a more honarable fashion. What would JESUS do? Would JESUS resort to name calling? I don’t think so. I know my comment won’t get posted, becasue anything that disturbs your equilibrium never seems to find its way onto your blog. Just one more sign of the weak platform you stand on.


--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,13:23   

Hooligan's post was closer to the actual Bible than those who wrote in to correct him.  And to say that putz is simply a word for fool belies an ignorance of its background.  Putz is slang for penis.  Calling someone a putz is the same as calling them a "dick head."

I can't think of any Bible verse where Jesus called someone a dick head, though maybe the IDists have now created their own version.

Edit:  Though, upon further consideration, they may not be experts in the Bible or law, they probably are experts in narcissistic dick heads.

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 291 292 293 294 295 [296] 297 298 299 300 301 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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