RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < ... 583 584 585 586 587 [588] 589 590 591 592 593 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 396
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2017,20:06   

I got it!!!1!    [/Gary Gaulin voice]

Four years later, a "real-science" experiment in this here thread here has reached its zenith. Here.

Searching Google (here) for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin" now returns AtBC as the first result.



Finally, a real-science theory that has evidence.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2827
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2017,20:37   

He seems to have been "doing well" at rationalskepticism.org, too.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2017,02:01   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 23 2017,07:01)
Not only are you in the position of being able to give your idea any name you wish, you really should name it something other than "intelligent design", as that name is already taken for something significantly different, and has already been completely discredited.   It's a little like naming your baby "Uglymoron" - you can do it, but why would you want to?


Once again your remedy makes as much sense as throwing "evolution by natural selection" out of science just because of how Ken Ham teaches it.

If you say that the Discovery Institute is talking about "God" then so am I. The only difference is they have a policy to leave how God works up to the imagination, I don't.

For contrast is what you have for theory that in a good answer looked like this:

   
Quote
M1A1M1A1, 1 point 1 day ago

Natural selection is governed by chemistry and physics. This we agree on. You know about the four forces.

From:
www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcnulkm/

My reply to that was:

   
Quote
GaryGaulin, 1 point 1 day ago

> Put simply, the intelligent designer is what exactly?

Through forces that power chemistry and physics our Intelligent Designer governs our morphology and even influences our thoughts in ways only a billions of year old trinity of self-learning systems existing as a planet sized collective that keeps itself going through time by falling in love and having babies ever could.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcteaet/?context=3

I'm making sure not to leave out what makes ID theory all it's supposed be in regards to being faith friendly and such. Same theory premise, just way more detail.

And on new baby filled thought I have to mention that a Wikipedia article for the tracksite is soon expected! Plus you don't have to worry about it being a makeshift attempt by me to create one! This is all very exciting. I'll post any news on when it will be ready.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
timothya



Posts: 263
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2017,05:02   

I seriously think this thread should be closed before somebody gets hurt.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2017,10:08   

Quote
Through forces that power chemistry and physics our Intelligent Designer governs our morphology and even influences our thoughts in ways only a billions of year old trinity of self-learning systems existing as a planet sized collective that keeps itself going through time by falling in love and having babies ever could.


Apart from the atrocious abuse of the English language, Gaulin, you still have to provide any testable scientific evidence for either your god (the so-called Intelligent Designer- peace be upon him) or for your unholy trinity of "intelligence".Perhaps you can start by providing evidence for the following;

"Molecular Intelligence
Answer, with evidence, the following questions;

1) Do non-organic molecules have "intelligence" as well as organic ones? How do you test your answer?
2) How long and large does an organic molecule have to be before it gains "intelligence"?
  2a) How does molecular weight affect said "intelligence"?
3) Does the addition of side chains influence the amount of "intelligence" in a molecule?
4) How about molecules containing Silicon, can they exhibit "intelligence"?
5) What effect does allotropy have?

Those will do for now, I have a lot more for you to answer. Remember that all your answers must have testable data to back them up, not just wild assertions.

Also remember that if you cannot supply any answers your "Not-a-theory" fails at the first paragraph.

Go to it, Gaulin!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2017,11:45   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Jan. 25 2017,02:01][/quote]
Quote
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 23 2017,07:01)
Not only are you in the position of being able to give your idea any name you wish, you really should name it something other than "intelligent design", as that name is already taken for something significantly different, and has already been completely discredited.   It's a little like naming your baby "Uglymoron" - you can do it, but why would you want to?


Once again your remedy makes as much sense as throwing "evolution by natural selection" out of science just because of how Ken Ham teaches it.

If you say that the Discovery Institute is talking about "God" then so am I. The only difference is they have a policy to leave how God works up to the imagination, I don't.


Not true.  Intelligent design, as proposed by its major proponents, has been entirely discredited.  This does not compare to judging evolution by what Ken Ham says about it.
Also, your stuff is not intelligent design - you are wrong about intelligence, and even if not, it involves no design whatsoever.

 
Quote
For contrast is what you have for theory that in a good answer looked like this:

     
Quote
M1A1M1A1, 1 point 1 day ago

Natural selection is governed by chemistry and physics. This we agree on. You know about the four forces.

No, that is not what we have for a theory.  That is a pretty crappy statement about natural selection.  You do not understand natural selection at all, so you are not in a position to critique it.  Natural selection is well documented, fairly easily measured, and entirely logical, unlike all the stuff in your assertions.

 
Quote
Through forces that power chemistry and physics our Intelligent Designer governs our morphology and even influences our thoughts in ways only a billions of year old trinity of self-learning systems existing as a planet sized collective that keeps itself going through time by falling in love and having babies ever could.

That's garbled woo, not science.  YOU are the one dragging in a "Designer" and a trinity.  Nothing in your model provides evidence for an Intelligent Designer - this is all you being unable to see through the fog clouding your own mind.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2017,01:07   

I have more links to share!

This one explains why the neuron based network for the ID Lab now needs to go 3D. If it works then I should be able to remove a time component in the 2D network, needed to reliably think ahead with only one map resolution.

https://www.reddit.com/r....dcbt930

And this new topic, for something else new for Wikipedia:

https://www.reddit.com/r....created

I have no time to feed the trolls, but made time to keep everyone here posted.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2017,04:46   

Quote
I have no time to feed the trolls, but made time to keep everyone here posted.


As I suspected, Gaulin, you have no defence for your bullshit. No scientific evidence and no credibility.

The Reddit subs that you inhabit are about your level of competence, that is none at all. Since Sandwalk, Uncommonly Dense, the Disco 'Tute and Panda's Thumb have all dismissed your feeble attempts to "science" the last place left for you is the echo chamber of Reddit.

When even the moron that is JoeG rejects you it is time to seriously re-assess your piled high and deep manure.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2017,23:54   

This is worth a read:

www.evolutionnews.org/2017/01/the_spike_code103455.html

I long ago read about timed coding in how retinal signals are transmitted and processed. Later other coding systems were described, though the analogy applies to anything that addresses signals along different routes.  

It's good to see the DI getting excited by this sort of thing. Or at least I believe so.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2017,03:56   

Quote
Or at least I believe so.


We know you believe a lot of things;

You believe what you are doing is science... it isn't.
You believe there is an Intelligent Designer... there isn't.
You believe that the DI is a scientific foundation...they aren't.
You believe you are right ...you aren't.
You believe scientists are wrong about your "theory"...they aren't.
You believe the Bible is true...it isn't.

Your beliefs have nothing to do with your attempts at science, they are presuppositions based on your god-addled upbringing.

Ditch the beliefs,Gaulin, you will feel better for it.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2017,17:58   

This important news was believe it or not deleted from the Reddit DebateEvolution forum. It's a must-read for keeping up with the latest Cambrian Explosion related discoveries:

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38800987

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1648
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2017,18:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2017,17:58)
This important news was believe it or not deleted from the Reddit DebateEvolution forum. It's a must-read for keeping up with the latest Cambrian Explosion related discoveries:

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38800987

That headline is very inaccurate. Do you know why, Gary?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2017,18:53   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 01 2017,18:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2017,17:58)
This important news was believe it or not deleted from the Reddit DebateEvolution forum. It's a must-read for keeping up with the latest Cambrian Explosion related discoveries:

Scientists find 'oldest human ancestor'
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38800987

That headline is very inaccurate. Do you know why, Gary?

You noticed!

Yes, the reason why was mentioned, where I found the link:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/scientists-find-oldest-human-ancestor-bbc#post-789207

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2017,17:58   

I can't tell whether Sedrocks is trying to be real, or a troll:

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/5rv4qx/effects_of_music_on_the_brain_does_music_elicit/ddcm3i0/

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2017,20:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2017,17:58)
I can't tell whether Sedrocks is trying to be real, or a troll:

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/5rv4qx/effects_of_music_on_the_brain_does_music_elicit/ddcm3i0/

It doesn't seem that way so why do you think that?

That aside, first, I don't see you answering anyone's points over there, and most of the people there are making a whole lot of valid points, mostly ones that have been made here over MANY pages.

Second, "troll" is your standard go-to accusation when you can't answer criticisms or questions, so your charge doesn't carry much weight.

PainInTheAssInternet seems to have your number.

From you:  
Quote
"The concepts the theory covers are now basic science: only sufferers of the Dunning–Kruger effect and trolls have a problem like you have with it."

Not a theory, not "now basic science", and pretty much everyone you've encountered here, there, and everywhere else has problems with it.

Vestigial Pseudogene
Quote
Also, I'm still disagreeing with the word "theory". As long as models are not tested on a hypothesis to test accuracy and predictability, you're just risking to write down interesting, but potentially useless stuff.

So my question then is, you do realize that your model does not have anything to do with how biologists try to model the real world, right? ....  It does not provide anything to the topic of biology. And it has no connection to the real world.


Shaumar:
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.  So, no. You're wrong.
.......................

This is presupposition, with the explicit goal to match facts to the pre-established conclusion, while disregarding anything that runs counter to this conclusion.  Work on that, the rest of the post is empty words.


Coldfirephoenix
Quote
Your blog entry won't even pass the first barrier though, since it isn't even a proper hypothesis, let alone a theory.  But just send it in so you can finally get over this delusion that you are doing science.

[elsewhere]
You are not fooling anyone. No one thinks you are on the side of science.


Mnementh2200
Quote
Yup. It's clear to him because there's only one possible conclusion in his mind.  To those of us who don't subscribe to his fantasy mythology bullshit religion, it's just... weird, disjointed, and rather dumb.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2017,23:16   

N.Wells.

There has still not been a single negative reply to the model or theory from any active member of the Reddit neuroscience or other serious Reddit forum it was needed at. The problem is from a relatively small group of protesters who like puppy dogs follow me around the internet, and all bite.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2017,00:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2017,23:16)
N.Wells.

There has still not been a single negative reply to the model or theory from any active member of the Reddit neuroscience or other serious Reddit forum it was needed at. The problem is from a relatively small group of protesters who like puppy dogs follow me around the internet, and all bite.

Yeah, right.

With respect to "residents" in r/neuroscience, you've got one thread where gavin corrected you and made a supportive suggestion, one thread where ohouston corrected you and made a supportive suggestion, one thread where all the responses to your post are by you, and another thread where the responses in their entirety consist of
Quote
aaronmil: What the fuck
Dunshire: Do you have a tl;dr or an abstract so we can decide whether or not we want to commit to reading your novel of a post?
aaronmil: I think it was generated by a bot.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,00:27   

See my reply to this post. It is in regards to my (for the sake of my nation) needing to publish the model/theory, pronto:  

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/5rv4qx/effects_of_music_on_the_brain_does_music_elicit/ddec9vd/

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,05:31   

Quote
the current US public education political climate makes this a time for the model and theory to be of service to my/our country. The NAS was formed to provide national leadership in scientific issues like this. What I have needs more work than a typical article or paper but it gives them something to work with for showing why what the Discovery Institute wants in all the public schools involves a scientific misconduct related scam a good part of mainstream religion already denounced.


(Link redacted by ChemiCat)

Please show, without referring us to your pile-o'-crap, why your "model-theory" has any educational benefits whatsoever. Your abysmal theology has no relevance to science, in fact it hinders the general public's understanding of how science works.

IF you could begin to realise how scientific enquiry does work in reality you would see how inadequate your crap is and how it distorts science beyond any possibility of being useful. You are not even wrong.

How about answering some of my questions? Of course, you can't because you are not "sciencing".

  
stevestory



Posts: 10942
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,06:24   

a much more funner reddit thread re gary

   
stevestory



Posts: 10942
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,06:27   

how's this for syntax:

Quote
The concepts the theory covers are now basic science: only sufferers of the Dunning–Kruger effect and trolls have a problem like you have with it.


You hit those last 5 words like a brick fucking wall.

Edited by stevestory on Feb. 08 2017,07:30

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,06:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2017,00:27)
See my reply to this post. It is in regards to my (for the sake of my nation) needing to publish the model/theory, pronto:  

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/5rv4qx/effects_of_music_on_the_brain_does_music_elicit/ddec9vd/

   
Quote
As it now stands I expect that by the time the political dust has four years or so from now settled the effects of some music on our brain might be a "Wow!" due to our experience from a "culture war" dropping into the forum(s) where I a graduate of the Connecticut School of Broadcasting who is best at science than all else do my best to help make the conflict look and sound as scientifically excellent as possible, especially on the radio.


(Yes, we all know the importance of making things look good on the radio.  But you may have missed the class on how judicious use of commas can prevent you from coming off as unhinged.)

Depending on what you mean by "who is best at science than all else", you may have an ego as impervious to reality as Trump's.  You are hopeless at science: you don't understand it at all, and letting your nonsense anywhere near the educational system would be a massive disservice to science, English, logic, and the students.  The ID conflict is not scientific, and your additions do not make it any more scientific.  Your model does not exhibit design (other than you writing it), and does nothing to shed light on intelligence (not how it works, nor how it develops or was designed, nor how we can identify it or measure it).  We might as well force the poor students to read the Time Cube guy.


And speaking of crappy English:
Quote
Study this very relevant to this forum premise for awhile.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,08:51   

Quote
As with Phrenology theory: theories can be false, as well as true.


There never was a Phrenology Theory, it was a woo-woo thing just like ID. So in your world false is true, black is white and you still don't know how to use commas.

Quote
Never ever should the word "theory" or the having been written by "theorists" be thought of as necessarily indicating that it has been tested to be true.


Apart from the excruciating abuse of the English language, a theory has been tested against known facts and found to be supported by them. Your pile-o'-crap is untestable so isn't even approaching a theory.

Quote
Where enough people are passionate they will keep trying anything, until a breakthrough happens. That's what just happened for the ID movement. In fact the ID theory predicts that where there are a whole lot of best guesses being tried where confidence being true is tested the result is collective intelligence that learns new knowledge from old. Regardless of testing true or false: all hypotheses are equally valuable, blessed.


This is total bollocks.

Quote
Kathy Martin helped bring to life an evo-word free science classroom demonstration introducing self-assembly to her peers (science teachers) while at the same time making it a mixing salad oil simple thing not something that needs evolution to explain. Spinoffs from the noisy public hearing for the "theory of intelligent design" made the whole thing worthwhile. Jack Krebs and others from KCFS can be proud for networking in help some of the best scientists in the world.


They lost and ID/creationism was shown to be Christianity in drag. The board were voted out in the next election. Behe, Dembski etc are not "the best scientists" by any stretch of language. In fact Dumbski ran away before testifying.


Quote
To be credible in science and engineering it's necessary for me to separate ID from religious arguments from creationism.


ID = creationism = religion. Nuff said.

Quote
The ID controversy has shown that ahead of time proposing then presenting for testing a theory like this can lead to great scientific benefit.


Just another mangling of the language with no content.

And, of course, the inevitable link to a crappy music video.

Thanks to Stevestory for the hilarious link.

  
k.e..



Posts: 4566
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,19:48   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 08 2017,16:51)
<snip>
Thanks to Stevestory for the hilarious link.


hehehe...link

 
Quote
I'm a software engineer. Give me your code. I'd be happy to take a look.
I'm guessing about 300 lines of spaghetti logic, written in Visual Basic, with no comments.


Quote
OK, just reading the theory of operation, there's nothing in there that actually supports Intelligent Design. It's a fairly simple little stateful maze runner, in a maze with hazards and a moving goal. Phrases like "it must have the common sense..." just anthropomorphize an algorithm. It's fairly easy to get complex behavior out of complex heuristic trees, after all.


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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5349
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,23:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 08 2017,06:27)
how's this for syntax:

   
Quote
The concepts the theory covers are now basic science: only sufferers of the Dunning–Kruger effect and trolls have a problem like you have with it.


You hit those last 5 words like a brick fucking wall.

Splendid! That's exactly what crash test dummies are for, anyway:

1989 "K-Tel" Vince and Larry Ad Council PSA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DW-cP3GRNg&index=4&list=PL13JZox6S8MH-tAP6DnlFw-_4mgxcyJ9z

You too could learn a lot from a dummy.
Buckle your safety belt, today!

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 396
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,23:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2017,22:01)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 08 2017,06:27)
how's this for syntax:

         
Quote
The concepts the theory covers are now basic science: only sufferers of the Dunning–Kruger effect and trolls have a problem like you have with it.


You hit those last 5 words like a brick fucking wall.

Splendid! That's exactly what crash test dummies are for, anyway:

1989 "K-Tel" Vince and Larry Ad Council PSA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DW-cP3GRNg&index=4&list=PL13JZox6S8MH-tAP6DnlFw-_4mgxcyJ9z

You too could learn a lot from a dummy.
Buckle your safety belt, today!


A quote from Reddit (where things are still going great*) seems appropriate here:
 
Quote
VestigialPseudogene

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but it seems like you didn't get it:

Don't randomly spam youtube songs to my comments, it's annoying, it makes you appear insane.


--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
k.e..



Posts: 4566
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2017,23:17   

fuck off poser

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2017,04:38   

Quote
You too could learn a lot from a dummy.


Only by testing to destruction and we have already done this to your pile-o'-crap.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2017,11:32   

:)  'Twas writ:

Quote
You too could learn a lot from a dummy.


Yes, but nothing from your swill not-a-theory.  Just thought you'd like to know . . . .

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 517
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2017,11:09   

Appears that Gaulin really has run into the wall.

  
  18530 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < ... 583 584 585 586 587 [588] 589 590 591 592 593 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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