RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll :: Total Votes:71
Poll choices Votes Statistics
In Science Classes 1  [1.41%]
In Philosophy of Science Classes 21  [29.58%]
In Religion Classes 18  [25.35%]
As a separate study (via groups like the IDEA clubs) 3  [4.23%]
Ooutside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc. 1  [1.41%]
It should be wiped off the face of the earth. 14  [19.72%]
Other (Please Specify) 13  [18.31%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   
  Topic: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:39   

FTK, it's the equivilent of Professor Dawkins criticising the bible without even having read it.

Behe don't read the papers, Behe not know what Behe missing.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:46   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,13:39)
FTK, it's the equivilent of Professor Dawkins criticising the bible without even having read it.

Behe don't read the papers, Behe not know what Behe missing.

JHC, that don't make no sense, oldman!  Anyone can see through your pathetic attempt at making sense.  Anyone who's name is FTK, that is.

What exactly do find objectionable or factually incorrect with oldman's very brief statement, Ftk?

Thanks for ignoring this one as well.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:48   

Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

 
Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.  

Are those page numbers from one of Behe's books where he makes this statement, or are those the page numbers from Miller's book where he makes this statement about Behe?  

It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

 
Quote
So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."


That would be a honest statement.  There are no known natural "explanations" for the evolution of the immune system, there is *speculation*, *assumption*, *inference*, yada, yada, yada.

I'd also like to know where you pulled this particular quote from as well because I can't imagine that Behe would say "it IS" IC.  He's usually pretty careful about stating his speculation that something is IC rather than implying absolutes.  But, it could very well be that he made a slip somewhere...courtrooms are stressful places.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:50   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:48)
Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.  

Are those page numbers from one of Behe's books where he makes this statement, or are those the page numbers from Miller's book where he makes this statement about Behe?  

It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

Quote
So those are the goalposts.  Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."


That would be a honest statement.  There are no known natural "explanations" for the evolution of the immune system, there is *speculation*, *assumption*, *inference*, yada, yada, yada.

I'd also like to know where you pulled this particular quote from as well because I can't imagine that Behe would say "it IS" IC.  He's usually pretty carefuly about stating his speculation that something is IC rather than implying absolutes.  But, it could very well be that him made a slip somewhere...courtrooms are stressful places.

Why not crack open your copy of Darwin's black box and have a look?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:52   

Quote
I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says


What about Walt Brown?  Or Dembski?  Or DaveScot?  Do you apply the same critical thinking to their statements as well?  Could you please provide one link to anything you've ever said that questions even one piece of what they call science?

If you're really equal opportunity, you will have done this--it'll be easy to post the evidence.

On that note, are you going to post equal numbers of articles critical of YEC at Young Cosmos--being that you're all for critical analysis and all?

Pathetic.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:57   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2007,13:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:10)
blipes...it's really quite simple.  If scientists are still trying to figure out how the immune system evolved and trying to determine the evolutionary pathways involved, then that would mean that articles from the past do not provide us with that information either.  If they did, the current speculation would not be necessary.

But How would you know they already solved it without reading the articles? They tend to make their claims *in* journals. By your logic Behe could never know because he doesn't review the works in which progress is made...

???

I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.  Are you actually trying to argue that Behe has *only* read the most current article on the topic?  As I said, he's been discussing this topic for years....quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

But, the point *again* is that if the current articles are still trying to find answers then the articles from the past have certainly not provided the answers either.

Okay, you guys simply *cannot* be this dense...are you just fucking with me?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:00   

Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.


This is a statement.  STATEMENT.  A STATEMENT!  Would you care to back it up?  Do you PERSONALLY know what Behe reads?  Are you sure he reads about the immune system a lot?  Why?  How?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:57)
I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.  

You didn'thave too. He showed us he doesn't on the stand.

--------------
"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: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:00)
Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.


This is a statement.  STATEMENT.  A STATEMENT!  Would you care to back it up?  Do you PERSONALLY know what Behe reads?  Are you sure he reads about the immune system a lot?  Why?  How?

FtK is at odds with Behe on the bench.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:01   

I'll rephrase it, since you're stupid.

Is it possible for any human being to know what a book contains without reading it?

Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:02   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,13:48)
Dave you quoted Miller refering to what Behe said:

   
Quote

Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller))


I've come to the point where I no longer take at face value everything that Miller writes or says.  I have caught him relaying so many inaccurate statements that it's very hard to take him seriously without doing indepth research to be sure he is quoting or relaying information accurately.

I don't have a copy of DBB here; I loaned it to my sister. But here is some information that may be relevant. From page 139 of Darwin's Black Box, as quoted by Walczak during the direct examination of Miller in the Dover trial.    
Quote
As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.

I am unable to find anywhere in that transcript where Behe denies saying that, so I assume it is an accurate quote. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you, or somebody else reading this, has a copy of DBB, maybe we can learn more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:04   

Quote
I never said he doesn't keep updated on the articles about the immune system.

Logically he must not be up to date otherwise he'd have read at least one in that big ole pile.

Quote
Are you actually trying to argue that Behe has *only* read the most current article on the topic?

I thought you were the one arguing that he only needed to read the latest one?
Quote
As I said, he's been discussing this topic for years....

Discussing it and getting paid. Shame no lab work from the great scientist.
Quote
quite obviously he's been reading plenty from peer reviewed journals about the subject.

And you know this how? Why would he, he "knows it's impossible" remember? Why would he bother?
Quote
But, the point *again* is that if the current articles are still trying to find answers then the articles from the past have certainly not provided the answers either.

"Science" is too big for one person's brain to cope with. Many times a scribble from years ago in the margin of a notebook becomes a whole new field of science, one the right things are in place. Until that time it's just an equation, waiting. Or a casual conversation links two different fields together and creates a new aspect to both.

Anybody who's read even a little history of science knows what I mean.

And yet you say what you say and here we are.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:07   

Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:07   

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the topic....one paper from 2005?

Holy buckets of monkey shite, you people really do think that IDists are insane.

Sigh.... :(

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:09   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:10   

Dave those two quotes are entirely different.  One is written as an absolute, the other is not.

I don't have Behe's book at the moment...my sister has it in hopes to read it when she finds the time.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:11   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Okay, let me see if I'm understanding your assumption correctly.  You're telling me that, though Behe has been considering the IC of the immune system for near a decade, he has only read one paper on the topic....one paper from 2005?

Holy buckets of monkey shite, you people really do think that IDists are insane.

Sigh.... :(

Yes.  Insane people do things like avoiding simple questions because they can't process them.

Speaking of which:

Quote
Is it possible for any human being to know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:14   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:15   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:14)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Well, then.  In your own words, what do you think that quote means?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:16   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,20:10)
Dave those two quotes are entirely different.  One is written as an absolute, the other is not.

I don't have Behe's book at the moment...my sister has it in hopes to read it when she finds the time.

So both you and Albatrossity have loaned your DBBs to your respective sisters?

Coincidence? I think not. I reckon this is another data point that everyone on the net except me is actually the same person. Damn you Bubba!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:17   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:48)
It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

So, as far as you know, Behe thinks that it's possible for irreducibly complex systems to have natural explanations?  Yes?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:18   

And while you're telling us IN YOUR OWN WORDS what As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. means,

could you also pontificate on:

Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:18   

Just posted from Josh Rosenau at SciBlogs

"Is it a lie if you ought to know better, but don't?"

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/10/making_light_lying_in_the_name.php

Personally, I still say Behe's a lying sack of shite.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:20   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:18)
Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:20   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:14)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:09)
   
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:07)
Come on, Albatrosity.  The term "frustration" is perfect for question dodging.

You're quite right. I was sort of focusing on the verb "dooms".

Masters of the weasel words, they are. That is exactly why they need to be put under oath whenever possible.

Or perhaps they are just honest, and you cannot bear to come to that realization.

Maybe.

Where's the evidence?

And why do they always lose when they are dragged into court?

Food for thought, at least...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:22   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 02 2007,14:20)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 02 2007,14:18)
Quote
Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read it?


Thanks.

Blipey - NOT counting the bible?

No, no, no.  Especially counting the Bible.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:32   

Quote

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.



Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:33   

A bit more research (thank ebola for that Dover transcript on line!) turned up this.

Under oath, Behe said    
Quote
There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system.

Link here.
And then he goes on to say lots of other things about evidence and frameworks and perspectives that got blown apart during the cross-x.

I think that the evidence is pretty clear that Behe said, and certainly believes, the characterization of him in my previously cited goalpost 1. If there is evidence to the contrary, it has yet to be divulged here.

--edit--
Note that he even used the words "could have", implying that there is not even any evidence to support "speculations", which is how Ftk characterized those papers she also hasn't read.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:35   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:32)
Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist © would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite infinite! in terms of CSI, or personal ignorance? complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists Yes, those theorists without a theory once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

My bits are in bold - oooh errr!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:36   

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:32)
Quote

As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.



Applying a dose of AtBC vulgarity, that quote translated by the voice of a true Darwinist would be as follows...

[high pitched whine]

"Crap... I really, really want to figure out how in the bloody hell my majestic and all powerful evolutionary mechanisms can account for the infinite complexity of the immune system (among many other highly complex systems and machines within the human body).  

I am simply frustrated beyond belief that I cannot figure it out so that I can put a muzzle on these damn ID theorists once and for all."

[/whining ceases and moanful sobbing begins]

Except who's whining that they can't figure it out except Behe? Everybody else is hunkering down and writing the textbooks and papers that Behe does not deign to notice.

How do you link "being unable to figure something out" (or, more specifically, prove a given thing absolutely to FTK's satisfaction by asking for the impossible) to muzzling ID theorists.

FTK, who is muzzling Dembski? It appears he is sufficiently unmuzzled to have his own website where he can post the home addresses and phone numbers of people who've likely never even heard of him.

Who's being muzzled?

The cracks are beginning to show FTK.

I thought you were leaving anyhow? Shouldn't you be over blogging at YoungCosmos (readership = zero)?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  178 replies since Sep. 29 2007,12:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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