RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < 1 [2] 3 4 >   
  Topic: The Mullings Meander, you'll give up before you find an answer< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2014,11:46   

Quote (KevinB @ July 08 2014,11:23)
Quote (stevestory @ July 08 2014,11:12)
why does this separate thread exist?

So you that can get your KF undiluted.

KF - less toxic than NaF

From Wikipedia

Quote
Like other sources of the fluoride ion, F−, KF is poisonous, although lethal doses approach gram levels for humans. It is harmful by inhalation and ingestion. It is highly corrosive, and skin contact may cause severe burns.


Rich, you need to be careful, the stupid will burn you and you may be approaching toxic levels.

I wonder if it accumulates or if the body can expel the compound over time.

Further, it apparently causes some kind of biochemical alteration in the brains of frequent users. As such, they are compelled to get more. This addiction could be a problem for the entire country.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2014,08:50   

MF calls him out:

Quote

327
Mark FrankJuly 9, 2014 at 5:10 am
KF #321

I cannot find anywhere in this long comment where you show that is self-evident that there must be an enabling condition for an event which takes place in some possible worlds but not others. Clearly pointing to examples will not prove that it is self-evident.


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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2014,09:06   

Another Mullings' Meander:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-506991

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2014,22:59   

Ruh Roh Raggy:

Quote
P: I have a government transition dealing with, so not a lot of time. Pardon short, sharp:


Oh this will be a small one, then...

Quote
From Alcibiades and co, to Robespierre, the rape of Belgium, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and co, NIHILISM is an issue. So also is the grounding of core rights, starting with life [from conception and implantation to natural death], liberty, innocent repute, liberty to pursue one’s purpose and calling, property and more . . .

It is history and the moans of over 100 million ghosts of victims of evolutionary materialism shaped scientism turned into ruthless state policy (not counting hundreds of millions of victims of abortion on demand . . . ) that put the grounding of morality at the centre of focus.

Sorry, the attempt to ignore the sheer weight of that horrific history is not good enough by a long shot.

In fact, I put it to you that that attempt itself reflects the creeping influence of the radical relativisation and nihilism that Plato put on the table 2350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. Which have been cited any number of times by way of if we refuse to learn from history we are doomed to repeat it’s worst aspects, and just as repeatedly willfully ignored or distracted from.

This is a deadly serious matter, far too serious for clever rhetorical games.

There is an IS-OUGHT gap, and there is but one level where it can be resolved: a world-foundational IS capable of bearing the awesome weight of a genuine OUGHT. With, after centuries, just one serious candidate on the table . . . the inherently good, creator God, a maximally Great and Necessary being, the root and sustainer of reality.

100 million ghosts are telling us that we had better solidly answer to NIHILISM.

To head off definitionitis:

ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.
[Latin nihil, nothing; see ne in Indo-European roots + -ism.]
nihil·ist n.
nihil·istic adj.
nihil·isti·cal·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Got to get some rest to prep for the policy war already in progress — the entrenched power classes have already signalled no we will not allow a honeymoon period, early on the morrow. And with implications of the Scottish independence vote on the 18th looming.

Oh, the ever present march of folly!

KF

49
kairosfocusSeptember 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm
PS: Please do not import distractive debates about Popper here, and do not set up strawman targets about knowledge, knowability and degrees of warrant or certainty; the matters linked to nihilism from the OP on are far too soberingly challenging for that.

I suggest to you that first reality is distinct from knowability and that exists across a spectrum of degree of warrant balanced with responsibility; where the long since known real world relevant weak-form sense of knowledge has been:

KNOWLEDGE — warranted, credibly true belief.

In key cases the degree of warrant and the circumstances are such that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or act as though the point of such “weak form” knowledge is false. (I here allude to the opening chapters of Greenleaf on Evidence, a refreshing antidote to ever so many common errors of our time.)

This is termed moral certainty for several good reasons, and it brings out that morality is connected to knowledge. Where also that which is true says of what is that it is and of what is not, that it is not. (Onlookers, kindly cf here (and here on) for discussions on relevant points.)

50
kairosfocusSeptember 14, 2014 at 9:46 pm
F/N: For reference, Greenleaf:

>> Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.

Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd.

The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.

The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.

By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)] >>


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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2014,02:45   

Indeed,  aphoristic, apothegmatic, brief, capsule, compact, compendious, crisp, curt, elliptical (or elliptic), epigrammatic, laconic, monosyllabic, pithy, sententious, succinct, summary, telegraphic, concise, thumbnail.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
sparc



Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2014,01:46   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 14 2014,22:59)
Ruh Roh Raggy:

   
Quote
P: I have a government transition dealing with, so not a lot of time. Pardon short, sharp:


Oh this will be a small one, then...

   
Quote
From Alcibiades and co, to Robespierre, the rape of Belgium, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and co, NIHILISM is an issue. So also is the grounding of core rights, starting with life [from conception and implantation to natural death], liberty, innocent repute, liberty to pursue one’s purpose and calling, property and more . . .

It is history and the moans of over 100 million ghosts of victims of evolutionary materialism shaped scientism turned into ruthless state policy (not counting hundreds of millions of victims of abortion on demand . . . ) that put the grounding of morality at the centre of focus.

Sorry, the attempt to ignore the sheer weight of that horrific history is not good enough by a long shot.

In fact, I put it to you that that attempt itself reflects the creeping influence of the radical relativisation and nihilism that Plato put on the table 2350 years ago in The Laws, Bk X. Which have been cited any number of times by way of if we refuse to learn from history we are doomed to repeat it’s worst aspects, and just as repeatedly willfully ignored or distracted from.

This is a deadly serious matter, far too serious for clever rhetorical games.

There is an IS-OUGHT gap, and there is but one level where it can be resolved: a world-foundational IS capable of bearing the awesome weight of a genuine OUGHT. With, after centuries, just one serious candidate on the table . . . the inherently good, creator God, a maximally Great and Necessary being, the root and sustainer of reality.

100 million ghosts are telling us that we had better solidly answer to NIHILISM.

To head off definitionitis:

ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
1. Philosophy
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.
[Latin nihil, nothing; see ne in Indo-European roots + -ism.]
nihil·ist n.
nihil·istic adj.
nihil·isti·cal·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Got to get some rest to prep for the policy war already in progress — the entrenched power classes have already signalled no we will not allow a honeymoon period, early on the morrow. And with implications of the Scottish independence vote on the 18th looming.

Oh, the ever present march of folly!

KF

49
kairosfocusSeptember 14, 2014 at 9:31 pm
PS: Please do not import distractive debates about Popper here, and do not set up strawman targets about knowledge, knowability and degrees of warrant or certainty; the matters linked to nihilism from the OP on are far too soberingly challenging for that.

I suggest to you that first reality is distinct from knowability and that exists across a spectrum of degree of warrant balanced with responsibility; where the long since known real world relevant weak-form sense of knowledge has been:

KNOWLEDGE — warranted, credibly true belief.

In key cases the degree of warrant and the circumstances are such that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or act as though the point of such “weak form” knowledge is false. (I here allude to the opening chapters of Greenleaf on Evidence, a refreshing antidote to ever so many common errors of our time.)

This is termed moral certainty for several good reasons, and it brings out that morality is connected to knowledge. Where also that which is true says of what is that it is and of what is not, that it is not. (Onlookers, kindly cf here (and here on) for discussions on relevant points.)

50
kairosfocusSeptember 14, 2014 at 9:46 pm
F/N: For reference, Greenleaf:

>> Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.

Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd.

The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.

The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.

By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)] >>

PPPPPPPPPPPPPS: According to their manifesto one of the candidates of the winning People's Democratic Movement (PDM) named one of her children Isis.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2014,01:50   

To be fair: This has nothing to do with the current situation in Arabia. Her other children are Osiris, Ocean and Joshua.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2949
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2014,08:29   

He's like the bastard son of GiGo and Mary Baker Eddy.

Loon.

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

  
damitall



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2014,05:10   

A new game:

Spot The Mullings in the anonymous contributions to "editorial" at the Montserrat Reporter

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,02:49   

Speaking of the Montserrat Reporter:

http://www.themontserratreporter.com/time-fo....-200288

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,03:08   

Aw, poor gordo:


BFP
July 16, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BFP To Kairosfocus

Dear Kairosfocus:

Your volume of comments and the length of your comments are upsetting the normal mood of this blog.

When you post four or five new comments all at once we see nothing but you under the “new comments” column.

Readers are complaining, and these are not only the readers who disagree with your position. You are monopolizing the comments on only one issue.

While we appreciate your position on the threat of world islamist fascism, and we post such articles occasionally, your debates are turning this blog into something else.

We have therefore placed you on moderation, and will restrict your comments to two a day of short length. You are more than welcome to invite our readers to your own site –

– BUT THIS IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE.

Yours truly,

Robert

Barbados Free Press

ETA: replaced link with one that works.

Edited by The whole truth on Dec. 18 2014,01:16

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
damitall



Posts: 331
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,07:18   

Ah, Barbados!

I thought it a nice place even before I knew they'd given KairosFlatus the bum's rush.

Now I think it even better

  
k.e..



Posts: 4878
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,08:23   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 18 2014,11:08)
Aw, poor gordo:


BFP
July 16, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BFP To Kairosfocus

Dear Kairosfocus:

Your volume of comments and the length of your comments are upsetting the normal mood of this blog.

When you post four or five new comments all at once we see nothing but you under the “new comments” column.

Readers are complaining, and these are not only the readers who disagree with your position. You are monopolizing the comments on only one issue.

While we appreciate your position on the threat of world islamist fascism, and we post such articles occasionally, your debates are turning this blog into something else.

We have therefore placed you on moderation, and will restrict your comments to two a day of short length. You are more than welcome to invite our readers to your own site –

– BUT THIS IS NOT YOUR WEBSITE.

Yours truly,

Robert

Barbados Free Press

ETA: replaced link with one that works.

And yet he is welcome at UD. Is UD competing with third world countries for blog posters?

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

  
sparc



Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,08:41   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 18 2014,02:49)
Speaking of the Montserrat Reporter:

http://www.themontserratreporter.com/time-fo....-200288

Here's what he has to say in addition on some other site:
Quote
Now that my response to accusations made by abuse of parliamentary privilege in the MLA has been published in the local newspaper of record (and so will be permanently archived by the local public library), I reproduce it here, adjusting for the security needs of a troll-infested Web


ETA:
I wonder if mis-spelling of his oh so secret last name is intentional:
Quote
Gordon Mullins of Montserrat Responds To Claims of Alleged EC$250K Consultancy Paid To Him


Edited by sparc on Dec. 18 2014,08:52

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,09:41   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 18 2014,08:41)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 18 2014,02:49)
Speaking of the Montserrat Reporter:

http://www.themontserratreporter.com/time-fo....-200288

Here's what he has to say in addition on some other site:  
Quote
Now that my response to accusations made by abuse of parliamentary privilege in the MLA has been published in the local newspaper of record (and so will be permanently archived by the local public library), I reproduce it here, adjusting for the security needs of a troll-infested Web


ETA:
I wonder if mis-spelling of his oh so secret last name is intentional:
Quote
Gordon Mullins of Montserrat Responds To Claims of Alleged EC$250K Consultancy Paid To Him

250k ECD is around $92k today.

Montserrat as a GDP per capita of less than $10k:

http://www.indexmundi.com/montser....29.html

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,10:19   

Really?  My on-line currency converter says 250K Euros is roughly $307K.
But really, any amount of money paid to Gordo is an obscenity.  It is inconceivable that anyone would find value in his output.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,10:27   

Quote (NoName @ Dec. 18 2014,10:19)
Really?  My on-line currency converter says 250K Euros is roughly $307K.
But really, any amount of money paid to Gordo is an obscenity.  It is inconceivable that anyone would find value in his output.

East Caribbean Dollars?

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3092
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,11:02   

Quote (NoName @ Dec. 18 2014,08:19)
Really?  My on-line currency converter says 250K Euros is roughly $307K.
But really, any amount of money paid to Gordo is an obscenity.  It is inconceivable that anyone would find value in his output.

"Here's $307K.  Now shut up and piss off."

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,14:32   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 18 2014,06:41)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 18 2014,02:49)
Speaking of the Montserrat Reporter:

http://www.themontserratreporter.com/time-fo....-200288

Here's what he has to say in addition on some other site:    
Quote
Now that my response to accusations made by abuse of parliamentary privilege in the MLA has been published in the local newspaper of record (and so will be permanently archived by the local public library), I reproduce it here, adjusting for the security needs of a troll-infested Web


ETA:
I wonder if mis-spelling of his oh so secret last name is intentional:
   
Quote
Gordon Mullins of Montserrat Responds To Claims of Alleged EC$250K Consultancy Paid To Him

In the url for the mnialive.com page the g is missing. On the page itself, in the sentence you quoted, there is a g. The g is missing in this sentence on the page: "The following is a paid statement by Gordon E. Mullins....."


On the Montserrat Reporter site gordo posted this:

"Time for a Temple Cleansing
Posted on 05 December 2014.

by Gordon E Mullings, MSc, MBA

The Kairos Initiative,
November 29, 2014"


On his blog he adjusted for "the security needs of a troll-infested Web" and posted this:

">>RESPONSE, FOR RECORD:
Time for a Temple Cleansing

by GEM, MSc, MBA

The Kairos Initiative,
November 29, 2014"


On the mnialive.com page that you linked to, where gordo paid to post his sermon, it says:

"Gordon Mullings of Montserrat Responds To Claims of Alleged EC$250K Consultancy Paid To Him"

And:

"Author: Gordon E. Mullings  Created Date: 17-Dec-2014  Category: Montserrat"

And:

"The following is a paid statement by Gordon E. Mullins....."


On his blog (where he used his initials) and on the mnialive.com page (where he used his full first name, middle initial, and full last name), but not on the Montserrat Reporter page (where he used his full first name, middle initial, and full last name), he said this at the beginning of his sermon:

"Now that my response to accusations made by abuse of parliamentary privilege in the MLA has been published in the local newspaper of record (and so will be permanently archived by the local public library), I reproduce it here, adjusting for the security needs of a troll-infested Web:"


For a guy who whines and accuses so much about "security" and "outing", gordo sure is a blabbermouth when it comes to posting information about himself (and his family) on a variety of websites. gordo is his own, and his family's, worst enemy, in more ways than one.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,14:47   

From

http://kairosfocus.blogspot.ca/2014....nd.html

Quote
(Yes, providing reasonable circumstances apply, single source procurement of goods and services is legitimate. One of these, patently, would be  confidential policy analysis and linked support services.)


Please tell me this impoverished nation is not spending on Fundy consulting...

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,14:52   

http://agc.gov.ms/wp-cont....122.pdf

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2014,14:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 18 2014,14:52)
[URL=http://agc.gov.ms/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/SRO.-No.-11-of-2012-Public-Finance-Management-and-Accountability-Procurement-Reg.-20122.pd

f]http://agc.gov.ms/wp-cont....122.pdf[/URL]

http://tinyurl.com/p52ynrj....p52ynrj

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,11:22   

After meandering, KF threatens folks and stands up for his hero, Duane Gish: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-553379

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,12:18   

And now:

Quote
33
kairosfocusMarch 12, 2015 at 11:12 am
NOTICE: Beyond this point, further trollish misbehaviour by CH is subject to removal. KF


From the child-belting man who suggests candidates for "censor of the year"

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

  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,19:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2015,10:18)
And now:

 
Quote
33
kairosfocusMarch 12, 2015 at 11:12 am
NOTICE: Beyond this point, further trollish misbehaviour by CH is subject to removal. KF


From the child-belting man who suggests candidates for "censor of the year"

Everybody expects KF's Nuclear-triggerish Penultimation!!!

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2015,20:15   







--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2015,20:15   

I've been looking at some older UD threads and came across something that is an example of how fucked up (and homophobic) gordo is. In addition to his other maniacal ranting, notice how gordo responds to WilliamRoache.

http://tinyurl.com/3khgxaf....3khgxaf


ETA: The url was too long to work so I changed it to one that does.

Edited by The whole truth on Mar. 21 2015,18:18

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11127
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2015,15:37   

KF only has a moment
Quote
kairosfocusMarch 24, 2015 at 1:54 pm
AS:

I have a budget headache to deal with (metaphorical, with foreshadowings of the literal one . . . ), but I snatch a moment.

Here on is your problem:

a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity.

b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances.

(This is physicalism. This view covers both the forms where (a) the mind and the brain are seen as one and the same thing, and those where (b) somehow mind emerges from and/or “supervenes” on brain, perhaps as a result of sophisticated and complex software looping. The key point, though is as already noted: physical causal closure — the phenomena that play out across time, without residue, are in principle deducible or at least explainable up to various random statistical distributions and/or mechanical laws, from prior physical states. Such physical causal closure, clearly, implicitly discounts or even dismisses the causal effect of concept formation and reasoning then responsibly deciding, in favour of specifically physical interactions in the brain-body control loop; indeed, some mock the idea of — in their view — an “obviously” imaginary “ghost” in the meat-machine. [[There is also some evidence from simulation exercises, that accuracy of even sensory perceptions may lose out to utilitarian but inaccurate ones in an evolutionary competition. "It works" does not warrant the inference to "it is true."] )

c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. So, we rapidly arrive at Crick’s claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as “thoughts,” “reasoning” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies.

d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning [["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds — notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! — is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised “mouth-noises” that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride.

(Save, insofar as such “mouth noises” somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin -- i.e by design -- tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.])

e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And — as we saw above — would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain?

f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent “delusion” is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it “must” — by the principles of evolution — somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism.

g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too.

h: That is, on its own premises [[and following Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, “must” also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this “meme” in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence. Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the “internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop” view:

>> . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions. [[Emphases added. Also cf. Reppert's summary of Barefoot's argument here.]>>

i: The famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist (as well as Socialist) J. B. S. Haldane made much the same point in a famous 1932 remark:

>> “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (Highlight and emphases added.)] >>

. . . DI Fellow, Nancey Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth:

>> A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . .

An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?

Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.

Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide.

Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.

To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.

A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”

On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.”>>

. . . also tellingly highlighting Darwin’s selective skepticism:

>> People are sometimes under the impression that Darwin himself recognized the problem. They typically cite Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” passage where he questions whether the human mind can be trustworthy if it is a product of evolution: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.”

But, of course, Darwin’s theory itself was a “conviction of man’s mind.” So why should it be “at all trustworthy”?

Surprisingly, however, Darwin never confronted this internal contradiction in this theory. Why not? Because he expressed his “horrid doubt” selectively — only when considering the case for a Creator.

From time to time, Darwin admitted that he still found the idea of God persuasive. He once confessed his “inward conviction … that the Universe is not the result of chance.” It was in the next sentence that he expressed his “horrid doubt.” So the “conviction” he mistrusted was his lingering conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.

In another passage Darwin admitted, “I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man.” Again, however, he immediately veered off into skepticism: “But then arises the doubt — can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”

That is, can it be trusted when it draws “grand conclusions” about a First Cause? Perhaps the concept of God is merely an instinct programmed into us by natural selection, Darwin added, like a monkey’s “instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.”

In short, it was on occasions when Darwin’s mind led him to a theistic conclusion that he dismissed the mind as untrustworthy. He failed to recognize that, to be logically consistent, he needed to apply the same skepticism to his own theory . . . .

Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”

Just so. Science itself is at stake. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that according to atheism, “the mind that does science … is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”

Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.

The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively . . . >>

j: Therefore, though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the “thoughts” we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the “conclusions” and “choices” (a.k.a. “decisions”) we reach — without residue — must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to “mere” ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity.

(NB: The conclusions of such “arguments” may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or “warranted” them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.)

k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that — as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows — empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one’s beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.)

l: Worse, in the case of origins science theories, we simply were not there to directly observe the facts of the remote past, so origins sciences are even more strongly controlled by assumptions and inferences than are operational scientific theories. So, we contrast the way that direct observations of falling apples and orbiting planets allow us to test our theories of gravity.

m: Moreover, as Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin reminds us all in his infamous January 29, 1997 New York Review of Books article, “Billions and billions of demons,” it is now notorious that:

>> . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel [[materialistic scientists] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[And if you have been led to imagine that the immediately following words justify the above, kindly cf. the more complete clip and notes here.]>>

n: Such a priori assumptions of materialism are patently question-begging, mind-closing and fallacious.

o: More important, to demonstrate that empirical tests provide empirical support to the materialists’ theories would require the use of the very process of reasoning and inference which they have discredited.

p: Thus, evolutionary materialism arguably reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, as we have seen: immediately, that must include “Materialism.”

q: In the end, it is thus quite hard to escape the conclusion that materialism is based on self-defeating, question-begging logic.

r: So, while materialists — just like the rest of us — in practice routinely rely on the credibility of reasoning and despite all the confidence they may project, they at best struggle to warrant such a tacitly accepted credibility of mind and of concepts and reasoned out conclusions relative to the core claims of their worldview. (And, sadly: too often, they tend to pointedly ignore or rhetorically brush aside the issue.)

Sauce for the goose works for the gander too.

Nimitz the treecat is bleeking with laughter.

KF

191
kairosfocusMarch 24, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Heks, yup. And if you think I would believe in God out of needing an emotional crutch, that does not pass the giggle test. BTW, the day I nigh broke my ankle, I learned the value of a crutch when it is really needed. KF

PS: Cf my recent discussion on matters ontological at UD here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....eat-being/....t-being

. . . this, I find pivotal on the issue of necessary being and God as serious candidate such that he is either impossible or actual; and there simply is no good reason to either doubt that God is a serious candidate NB or to think his existence is impossible like how a square circle is impossible. If you doubt that necessary beings exist, try coming up with a world where two-ness does not exist.

192
kairosfocusMarch 24, 2015 at 2:31 pm
F/N: I find the modal ontological context a rich vein for understanding how to think about God and our world. It turns out that given our evident life under moral government, the context leads to a vision of the eternal, ininite-personal inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being, ground of reality, well worthy of worship. Before you get anywhere near a work on theology much less a religious tradition. This context puts some meat and colour on the skeleton of the God of the philosophers. And, it clearly indicates that ethical theism is on to something really powerful. Oh, how a priori evolutionary materialist scientism and its fellow travellers have robbed us of insight even as they have puffed us up with a sneering dismissal of those who see what we have blinded ourselves to. KF

193
kairosfocusMarch 24, 2015 at 2:34 pm
Ponder, and tremble:

William Blake. 1757–1827

489. The Tiger

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies 5
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart? 10
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp 15
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water’d heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee? 20

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

KF


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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2949
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2015,20:49   

I don't. Screw that noise.

--------------
"[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: Mar. 24 2015,22:19   

Blake is one of my favorite poets, but he seems to have been batshit crazy. Favorite example of that is this:

Quote
AND did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.


Sounds like British Mormonism.

Put to a great tune, it seems to be the British equivalent of America the Beautiful and Battle Hymn of the Republic mushed together. If you watch BBC costume dramas, you hear it several times a day.

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

  
  93 replies since June 30 2014,02:05 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < 1 [2] 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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