RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 >   
  Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread, You may know him from "Panda's Thumb"...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,21:58   

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 21 2011,19:45)
I'd add that my conscience can't let two people who love each other be barred from getting married, even if they are of the same sex (consenting adults only, please). †Is that from God, too? †If so, then, boy...is he confused.

This, ex-fucking-zactly.  Cranked to eleven.

Oh, wait.  Biggy probably doesn't think gays are human, never mind being worthy of compassion instead of condemnation.  His imaginary friend likes to break its own toys, apparently.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4935
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,06:56   

Troll derailment material shifted to the Bathroom Wall.

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

    
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,03:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,04:17   

Quote
4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.


That is total male bovine feces! You are "assuming" the law of noncontraction (noncontradiction, maybe?) even applies to god. Who the fuck are you to know that? Seriously? Isn't your god all powerful? Why then should he be subjected to any law?

And what the hell do you mean by "and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context"?!? In what context would it ever be moral to kill and eat babies?

And to finish, god would be incapable of doing something? the all-powerful, omnipotent god of the bible?!?

Get your shit together, dheddle. That's pure, unadulterated inconsistancy...

ETA: and basicaly the same as answer nį2, only poorly formulated...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
dheddle



Posts: 543
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,05:06   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,04:17)
Quote
4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.


That is total male bovine feces! You are "assuming" the law of noncontraction (noncontradiction, maybe?) even applies to god. Who the fuck are you to know that? Seriously? Isn't your god all powerful? Why then should he be subjected to any law?

And what the hell do you mean by "and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context"?!? In what context would it ever be moral to kill and eat babies?

And to finish, god would be incapable of doing something? the all-powerful, omnipotent god of the bible?!?

Get your shit together, dheddle. That's pure, unadulterated inconsistancy...

ETA: and basicaly the same as answer nį2, only poorly formulated...

Most Christians assume god is subject to the law of noncontradiction. The most common formulation is: God cannot lie. Not: god chooses not to lie, but god cannot lie, for lying would make him A and not-A at the same time and in the same circumstances.

And it is not the same as #2, which carried as a consequence that morality exists independent of god. (Which may be true--all I'm saying is there is [at least] a 4th answer.) The answer I gave does not demand that there is morality independent of god. It is aligned with [P1] god defines morality, †[P2] eating babies is immoral, [P3] god never acts immorally [C] god cannot (not just will not) command the eating of dead babies.

As for a context when baby eating is acceptable--I can't think of one--I just wrote as narrowly as I could.

But that's not the point anyway. The point is I offered a fourth answer which, contrary to your claim, is not at all the same as #2.

Again, it is rather obvious that god is subject to the laws of logic--unless you really think the old "can god make a stone he cannot lift?" is truly a insoluble conundrum for theists. I mean, after all, is he omnipotent or not?

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:03   

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,05:06)
Again, it is rather obvious that god is subject to the laws of logic--unless you really think the old "can god make a stone he cannot lift?" is truly a insoluble conundrum for theists. I mean, after all, is he omnipotent or not?

The primary problems with IBelieveInGod are a) that he is a religious bigot who claims he is moral, yet, invents illogical justifications for his immoral behavior, such as accusing literally everyone who either disagrees with, or points out his misdeeds as being an evil atheist who hates God, b) his penchant for asking inane, stupid, and easily answered rhetorical questions in order to ignore all responses, just so he can boast about how he used his "FAITH" (sic) to stump the evil, stupid scientists, and c) how he constantly conflates "Atheism" with "Devil-Worship," "Hatred of God," "Science," "Communisim," "Islam," "Terrorism," "Dictatorships," "Religious Intolerance," and literally anything, anyone, everything, everyone he dislikes.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,08:36   

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,03:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

I've got to agree with S.Dog on this one.  Your fourth statement is exactly the same as the 2nd one.

If God does not decide what is moral, then God is dependent on an external morality.  Which means, he's pretty much... well... not God.

If God does decide what is moral, then it would perfectly acceptable* for God to make eating babies moral.

- or -

We could all accept that there is no such thing as universal morality (as evidenced throughout the history of religious practice) and be done with it.

*Well, I probably wouldn't think so, but he's God.  He can do whatever he wants... unless he can't.  Which is, sort of, the question now isn't it.

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:54   

Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing.  He can't help it, though.  He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
khan



Posts: 1529
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,10:58   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:54)
Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing. †He can't help it, though. †He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD

"Tooth Fairy Science"
How has the amount of money left by the Tooth Fairy kept up with inflation?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1718
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,17:16   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,10:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:54)
Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing. †He can't help it, though. †He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD

"Tooth Fairy Science"
How has the amount of money left by the Tooth Fairy kept up with inflation?

The secret is volume.

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

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,07:36   

So IBelieve has returned, and he may be a sockpuppet named "Carolyn James"

  
Sol3a1



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,07:57   

Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,08:49   

Quote (Sol3a1 @ Jan. 29 2011,07:57)
Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me

Strange, isn't it?

One gets the impression that cheating on your current wife while she's dying of cancer is, at worst, a minor faux pas on par with spilling salt on your dinner companion.

And yet, the idea of two people of the same gender wanting to enter into a monogamous relationship for emotional, social and legal reasons is abhorrent, on par with eating living babies and puppies on the street.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,10:52   

See guys, y'all are still thinking rationally.

Remember, if a Christian person does something immoral (for example, a pastor running off with his secretary, both of whom are married to someone else)...

1) It's the devil's fault.
2) The person is at fault, not the religion.
3) Hate the sin, love the sinner.
4) We (not God, 'we') forgive you.

So anything that's, shall we say, morally ambiguous (i.e. anything a Christian guy does to chattel (like women)) is frowned upon and talked about quietly in the church halls.

But if it's a non-Christian... then none of the above apply because that person is the devil, their religion (even if they don't have one) is at fault, it's OK to hate the person too, and God'll have to forgive you 'cause we won't.

To see the truth of this, take a look at any Christian preacher, priest, or congress person who has been proven to take drugs, have affairs, have naked body massages from same sex hookers.  It's all OK.

But if a non-Christian says, "uh, what's wrong with it?"  Then all hell breaks loose.

Christianity is the absolute worst us vs. them group I've ever seen.

Hey IBIG, if you're still around, who's the father of modern Christianity?

I bet you don't know.  Of course, your theology is worse than your science, which isn't quite as bad as your morality.

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

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

   
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2011,20:55   

After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed. †And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2011,01:34   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Feb. 20 2011,11:55)
After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed. †And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.

One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2011,07:40   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 20 2011,01:34)
One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.

You need to read the 400 panels of the old Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb, most of which he is responsible for directly or as responses to his posts. †

IBIG quoted reams of bible verses, even quoted an entire 6,000 word sermon!

Never convinced one Panda of anything.

Fancies himself a bible expert.

Be careful what you wish for.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4875
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2011,10:13   

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,11:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

hOLY FUCK hEDDLE.

*crikey forgot to turn off dt*

So what about all the killing done in teh name of the grand fatwa himself?

Even GWB invaded because dog told him to.


You do understand that relgions and all their claims are a frikking belief system don't u?

And as such what you or anyone else claims have no basis in fact or in Rome vis a vis Jerusalam.

If I claim it is moral to not believe in your god and I say god agrees with me then who decides?

And 'god decides' isn't an answer for obvious frikking reasons.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2947
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,16:45   

Quote
IBIG:
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells?

What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I donít plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesnít matter if the energy is there, my television still wonít work unless I actually plug it in.


What the hell does that even mean?
You're even more obtuse than usual, Biggy.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5167
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,16:54   

Is it worth mentioning that heat energy will flow in or out of a dead body if it's at a different temperature than its surroundings?

Nah, probably not.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,17:06   

Sorry for badgering people about responding to IBIG on PT, but it astounds me that anybody wouldn't recognize he's just yanking the big chain to see how much noise it makes.

He doesn't like being sent to the ATBC though.  No fun spraying graffiti in a place where the walls are normally decorated with it.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,17:29   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 02 2011,16:45)
Quote
IBIG:
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells?

What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I donít plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesnít matter if the energy is there, my television still wonít work unless I actually plug it in.


What the hell does that even mean?
You're even more obtuse than usual, Biggy.

He just wants to prove how stupid and evil we are, because we don't worship his interpretation of the Bible, and he wants to prove how much smarter he is than all of the evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists in the world.

As usual.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,18:42   

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.

--------------
Iím referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Iím not an evolutionist, Iím a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,19:15   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 02 2011,18:42)
Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.

Actually, old-timey gods never had any ambiguities over questions of the true nature of good -- they just told you to do something, and you did it, or else. †

I noticed heddle was using the Aquinas ploy on the nature of good: †"Well, God tells us what is good, but God is perfectly good and so will only tell us to do what is good."

I'm actually fairly tolerant of religions, but I do get exercised on theological arguments: †"You're dodging the question: †is GOOD just whatever the Big G says it is? †Then the Big G can tell us to do whatever He likes and we just have to deal with it. †If the Big G CAN'T arbitrarily tell us to do whatever He likes, then there's some abstract standard of GOOD that even HE has to acknowledge."

Now ... the question being effectively irrelevant, I don't really care which it is -- but PLEASE, don't try to give me both answers at the same time and think I'm going to buy it.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,20:37   

Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:28)
Don't make me mad...

"Too late!"

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,20:51   

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 02 2011,20:37)
Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:28)
Don't make me mad...

"Too late!"

We didn't do anything: he was already mad mentally ill to begin with.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,21:02   

You know, when you take the vowels out of curse words... they are still curse words.

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

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

   
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,21:16   

Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:55)
you little f*ckers really need to worry about your own sanity...

"Worry"?  I enjoy every minute of being crazy, and absolutely nobody's going to take it away from me.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,21:28   

Flushed, and teh newbie (not) has flounced - let's move on.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4935
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,22:32   

Yawn. IBIG is channeling Gish in his latest on Joe's 2LoT thread at PT. It didn't impress me coming from a Berkeley grad twenty years ago, IBIG... what makes you think that it sounds any better, or any less utterly rebutted, when you say it?

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

    
  741 replies since Oct. 31 2010,16:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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