RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 598 599 600 601 602 [603] 604 605 606 607 608 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:05   

DS likes proof of concepts
 
Quote
We know that genetic engineers capable of tinkering with heritable characters of organic life for directed purposes exist in the universe today. That is a proof of concept for ID. Demand a proof of concept for hypothetical Darwinian mechanisms and don?t settle for simian gibberish in place of real proof.

Link
 
Quote
It tells us that the universe contains, in at least one instance, intelligent agency capable of purposeful tinkering with heritable traits in living things in steps of any size or complexity. It?s a proof of concept for ID. An equivalent proof of concept for chance & necessity does not exist except for very tiny changes of limited size & complexity. It?s sheer speculation beyond that.

Link
In the next comment Dr Dr Dr Dembski chimes in (most fittingly!)
 
Quote
?Proof-of-concept works only when one proves the concept. Origin-of-life researchers are a long way from establishing proof of concept. Indeed, it has completely eluded them. Their willingness to embrace just about any highly speculative scenario for life?s origin suggests that in fact they are giving up on proof of concept and acting out of desperation, trying to shore up a materialistic explanation of life?s origin when life is clearly telling us that its origin is not materialistic.?

Link
DS has more to say however!
 
Quote
If you examine an old watch you know its designer had the capability to mill metal to fine tolerances. You can?t reliably infer anything more about the designer than that. When we examine the design of living systems all we can infer about the designer is some expertise in biochemistry and genetic engineering. How many instantiations of intelligent agency in the causally connected universe have or ever had those capabilities? The answer is at least one and that one instance constitutes a proof of concept.

Link

Ha.

EDIT: Missed one:
Quote
Well, if we called it human intelligent design theory you might have a point. But we don?t. It?s just intelligent design and we have one demonstrable example of intelligent design in the universe. It?s called ?proof of concept?. Ergo, intelligent design is possible, observable, and is happening today. Since you?re a physicist perhaps you can tell me if there are any physical laws which prohibit intelligent design in the past? (the question is not rhetorical) -ds

Link

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:20   

Jehu Proclaims from the mountain of knoweledge he sits atop of
Quote
Scientists have tried for decades to evolve novelty in the lab and it hasn?t worked. Not even a sngle novel enzyme. Why would it be any different for synthetic life?

Link

Reality notes:
Quote
In the August 16 issue of Nature, two Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) researchers describe a way of creating novel enzymes that, for the first time, does not require prior understanding of exactly how the enzymes work.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28877

Quote
The review by Rubin-Pitel and Zhao summarizes the recent achievements in biocatalyst engineering by directed evolution. The manuscript focuses on altering activity, selectivity, substrate specificity, stability, and solubility. The creation of novel enzyme activity and products are highlighted.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00001

There are also many many similar articles I don't have time to link to.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:27   

I wonder if the so called (giggle) Xtian god was employing 'proof of concept' when he blew into a handful of dust to make Adam and did Cain use 'proof of concept' to get himself a wife?

And Jesus did he use 'proof of concept' to migrate ghostlike into the gated comunity "Heavenly Suburbs"?

'Proof of concept' must be big tent code for proving the unprovable.

Judge: Is it a proof?
IDist: No your honor it's a 'proof of concept', wink wink.
Judge: Oh OK sort of like imaginary fingerprints on imaginary glass.
IDist: Yes, exactly right your honor.
Judge: Case closed ....next!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:31   

Quote
The review by Rubin-Pitel and Zhao summarizes the recent achievements in biocatalyst engineering by directed evolution.


THOSE LYING STEALING EVOLUTIONISTS ARE USING PROOF OF CONCEPT I.D. AND CALLING IT 'DIRECTED EVOLUTION', JUST WAIT TILL WE OPEN OUR OWN LAB RIGHT DR.DR.DR.DR.DR DEMBSKI? D.T.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,11:34   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,11:20)
Jehu Proclaims from the mountain of knoweledge he sits atop of ? ? ?  
Quote
Scientists have tried for decades to evolve novelty in the lab and it hasn?t worked. Not even a sngle novel enzyme. Why would it be any different for synthetic life?

...

There are also many many similar articles I don't have time to link to.

Quote
JJS P.Eng.: If this is the best ?reward? that researchers can hope for, I would expect the best minds to escape in droves to the private sector (which probably has happened already).

He's right. Evolution of novel enzymes has moved rapidly into the private sector, including for medical purposes.

ENZYMES: Team to Breed Novel Enzymes: The enzymes will be designed or evolved to replace chemical conversion steps in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries that now use traditional catalysts.

They even have fancy trademarks and patents, like DirectEvolution?.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,13:08   

This artificial cell has the potential for generating alot of egg-on-face for the ID crowd, if their comments are any indicator. GilDodgen says
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine. The sad thing is that many intelligent, highly educated people have been conned into accepting the biggest get-something-for-nothing scam in the history of science: Darwinism.

If these guys want a realistic look at what Darwinian mechanisms can do for their concoction, even if they succeed in creating it, they should read The Edge of Evolution.


I'll enjoy watching that smug twerp Gil eat his words, in 3 to 10 years time! Link
Directly after, Jehu compounds his error
Quote
They should also look at the historical results from corporations like Applied Evolution and others that have tried to evolve novel enzymes. The result? Nada. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

IDiots

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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,14:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,13:08)
This artificial cell has the potential for generating alot of egg-on-face for the ID crowd, if their comments are any indicator. GilDodgen says
     
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine. The sad thing is that many intelligent, highly educated people have been conned into accepting the biggest get-something-for-nothing scam in the history of science: Darwinism.

If these guys want a realistic look at what Darwinian mechanisms can do for their concoction, even if they succeed in creating it, they should read The Edge of Evolution.


I'll enjoy watching that smug twerp Gil eat his words, in 3 to 10 years time! Link
Directly after, Jehu compounds his error
     
Quote
They should also look at the historical results from corporations like Applied Evolution and others that have tried to evolve novel enzymes. The result? Nada. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

IDiots

Psst!  Hey, Gil! About that perpetual motion machine . . .

Didn't some ID people fall for the Orbo?  
Didn't DaveScot claim to violate the 2LOT every time he writes a sentence?  

I wouldn't go talking about perpetual motion in that crowd.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,14:21   

Days like this I feel like we're all barging into a school for retarded children and pointing at them and laughing.

Still fun, tho.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,16:52   

Quote
scordova: One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed

At least scordova admits this is a quote mine. It's filed under Humor. Scordova has a problem with semi-colons. Is that why it's funny?

Darwin: One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,17:03   

Re "intelligently designed":

They keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,17:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,12:05)
DS likes proof of concepts...

The cited examples seem so distant from the original ambitions of ID.

Perhaps DaveTard intended "spoof of concept."

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

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,17:57   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 20 2007,15:21)
Days like this I feel like we're all barging into a school for retarded children and pointing at them and laughing.

Still fun, tho.

It is very much like pointing and laughing at retarded children, which wouldn't be ethical. The difference is, these retarded children are trying to damage science education and policy, so they forfeit their entitlement to kid gloves.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,18:02   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,14:08)
GilDodgen says
 
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine.

m/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-proof-of-concept-in-3-10-years-say-scientists/#comment-133236]IDiots[/URL]

Gil, go talk to DaveTard. According to Dave, it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine. He didn't say this explicitly, and probably dosen't understand it, but he said he could break the SLOT. If you can break the SLOT, you can create a perpetual motion machine.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,18:33   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 20 2007,18:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,14:08)
GilDodgen says
?
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine.

m/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-proof-of-concept-in-3-10-years-say-scientists/#comment-133236]IDiots[/URL]

Gil, go talk to DaveTard. According to Dave, it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine. He didn't say this explicitly, and probably dosen't understand it, but he said he could break the SLOT. If you can break the SLOT, you can create a perpetual motion machine.

As we all know (since he told us), Dave Scot can single-handedly violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely by typing sentences in his (no doubt Dell) computer. But this makes me wonder: is this a general rule of all humans, or is Dave the only one who can violate 2LOT this way?

If Dave's the only one who can do this, maybe we should be a lot more afraid of him.  :O

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,19:29   

Of course, if it were that easy to break the 2nd LOT, it wouldn't be called a law in the first place.

Also if it were that easy to break, there'd be no point in ID/C pushers bothering to exclaim evilution contradicts the 2nd LOT, since it that case the "argument" wouldn't mean anything. (Then again, it doesn't really mean anything anyway, given that there's at least a dozen different ways of refuting it, but never mind that.)

Henry

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,20:19   

Tribune7 comes over all charitable. Wanker.
Also, check out Sal continuing the misrepresentation of Nick Matzke in the comments (but it's OK as the post is filed under humor).

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,21:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 20 2007,19:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,14:08)
GilDodgen says
?  
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine.

m/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-proof-of-concept-in-3-10-years-say-scientists/#comment-133236]IDiots[/URL]

Gil, go talk to DaveTard. According to Dave, it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine. He didn't say this explicitly, and probably dosen't understand it, but he said he could break the SLOT. If you can break the SLOT, you can create a perpetual motion machine.

That and he can use the most powerful force in the universe...gravity. :p

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,21:08   

Well, he is infinitely dense. Well, uncommonly!

--------------
"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: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,21:30   

Slimey Sal, big on free speech...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor....-133296

Sorry about your irony meters, folks.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,22:00   

scordova is a tard
Quote

Quote

Jack Krebs argues:
Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesn?t pertain to this site at all.

Yeah right, Jack, where I can?t plead my case before your over there where you act as Judge and Jury. I can plead my case here however, and since you?re here, it is an opportune time to mention it.
Any way, feel at home here at UD Jack, I have no intenetion of suppressing what you have to say.
I?m merely pointing out that I have extended much more courtesy to you than you have to me at KCFS, where people have the freedom to ignore threads that I start there (unlike a blog, where they have less choice about what they read).
I?ve asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce. I?m complaining you hadn?t gone the extra mile on my behalf over at KCFS where it seemed you?d tolerate any level of vulgarity directed toward me.
Your toleration of vulgarity and accusations of lying didn?t bother me as much as the fact you would tolerate that and yet stop a limited number of discussions on scientific topics that I started and which I took care to stay on scientific grounds.
I posted material on Lewontin which you shut down, yet you regularly allow bandwith for insults and ad homs to be directed at me. I can take the trash talking, but I find it a bit inequitable that discussion of things like Lewontin?s Santa Fe 2003 paper get quickly labeled as spam, yet stuff on your board that should clearly count as frivolous is permitted.


It's not ad hom to call Salvador a liar, because he is, demonstrably, a liar.

   
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,22:10   

[sarcasm]
I can't imagine why Jack Krebs might have a problem with Sal.

After all, Sal has always been extremely courteous to Jack on his own blog.
[/sarcasm]

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,22:10   

Sal doesn't understand that ad hominem refers to dismissing an argument because of some irrelevant characteristic of the arguer.  If I say that your ideas about ID are wrong because you are a jerk, that is an ad hominem argument.  If I just call you a jerk, that is not an ad hominem argument.  It may be rude and impolite, and it might be quite wrong (or not), but it is not ad hominem.

I'll also point out that Sal is not banned - his last foray at KCFS was sent to the Home for Wayward Comments, our version of the bathroom wall, but that is not the same as being banned

And the thing that Sal is most wrong about, and I am just sure he know this, is his statement that his post was moved because of its content, which was something about a quote from Lewontin.  His post was moved because of his outrageous quote-mine about Darwin beating a puppy, and his absolute refusal to apologize, or even admit any wrongdoing, when the context of the quote was pointed out.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,01:40   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 20 2007,22:10)
Sal doesn't understand that ad hominem refers to dismissing an argument because of some irrelevant characteristic of the arguer.  If I say that your ideas about ID are wrong because you are a jerk, that is an ad hominem argument.  If I just call you a jerk, that is not an ad hominem argument.  It may be rude and impolite, and it might be quite wrong (or not), but it is not ad hominem.

I'll also point out that Sal is not banned - his last foray at KCFS was sent to the Home for Wayward Comments, our version of the bathroom wall, but that is not the same as being banned

And the thing that Sal is most wrong about, and I am just sure he know this, is his statement that his post was moved because of its content, which was something about a quote from Lewontin.  His post was moved because of his outrageous quote-mine about Darwin beating a puppy, and his absolute refusal to apologize, or even admit any wrongdoing, when the context of the quote was pointed out.

I have posted about this on the Rhetoric forum at Young Cosmos.  See it here while it lasts.  Meanwhile, for posterity:
Quote
On issues of respect. I see that Sal is upset at Jack Krebs. Follow me here. On UD, Sal writes:
Quote:

Quote

Jack Krebs argues:

Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesn?t pertain to this site at all.

Yeah right, Jack, where I can?t plead my case before your over there where you act as Judge and Jury. I can plead my case here however, and since you?re here, it is an opportune time to mention it.

Any way, feel at home here at UD Jack, I have no intenetion of suppressing what you have to say.

I'm merely pointing out that I have extended much more courtesy to you than you have to me at KCFS, where people have the freedom to ignore threads that I start there (unlike a blog, where they have less choice about what they read).

I've asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce. I?m complaining you hadn't gone the extra mile on my behalf over at KCFS where it seemed you?d tolerate any level of vulgarity directed toward me.

Your toleration of vulgarity and accusations of lying didn't bother me as much as the fact you would tolerate that and yet stop a limited number of discussions on scientific topics that I started and which I took care to stay on scientific grounds.

I posted material on Lewontin which you shut down, yet you regularly allow bandwith for insults and ad homs to be directed at me. I can take the trash talking, but I find it a bit inequitable that discussion of things like Lewontin?s Santa Fe 2003 paper get quickly labeled as spam, yet stuff on your board that should clearly count as frivolous is permitted.


Okay. But at Kansas Citizens for Science, Krebs writes:
Quote

[Moved to the HFWC. For Sal to post here, he must a) offer something other than a drive-by posting on a topic that he does not in fact discuss, b) drop his unconscionable sig line, and c) demonstrate that he will discuss rather than just provoke. Until he does otherwise, his presence here will be considered unacceptable trolling]
__
"I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power" -- Charles "Gas" Darwin

I don't see how this is different from the "Recycle Bin" here, except that here some comments were also changed, mocked, etc. (Respect? Hmm.)

And I agree with Krebs about the signature line.

Anyway, I'm sure Jack feels treated with respect generally. Witness this:
Quote
I'm pleased to announce that Jack Krebs, President of KCFS (Kansas Center For Sewage, a Darwinist organization for indoctrinating public school children into Darwinism) and author at PandasThumb is the recipient of the 2007 Darwin Awards conferred by the NCSE.

Who wouldn't feel respected?


--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,08:25   

Of course Jack didn't ban Sal.  There's no need to.  All you have to do is challenge him or ask him a direct question, and he disappears like a cheesy poof belch in the wind.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,08:41   

Once again, DonaldM admits that no experiment can possibly falsify ID:  
Quote
COuld someone explain to me how they intend to conduct the research? The moment they establish and set any pre-conditions or states, they?ve introduced design into the mix. How then to say that anything that results is solely the end product of the blind, purposelss process of evolution?

You tell 'em, Donald.  All experiments are infected with design, so they can't tell us anything about nature.  If you drop two different weights from the Tower of Pisa, you have no way of knowing if they fell at the same speed because of gravity or because of design.

This is just another variation on a favorite ID theme, namely, "Science doesn't work."  (The other favorite ID theme is, "ID is science".)

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,09:30   

The whole 'contaminated with design' idea is painfully stupid.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:03   

Re "you have no way of knowing if they fell at the same speed because of gravity or because of design."

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories - an engineer might use gravity to accomplish whatever the purpose was.

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:13   

Anyone want to play ID bingo?



Yes, I have too much time on my hands...

p.s. also taking suggestions for improvements to the categories...

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,13:16   

Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 21 2007,12:13)
Anyone want to play ID bingo?



Yes, I have too much time on my hands...

p.s. also taking suggestions for improvements to the categories...

Excellent - BUT you got to lable the X & Y axis!

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,13:26   

Quote
kairosfocus: In Art?s absence, are there any takers?

Hello!? Is anyone there?

Hermagoras? Peter Olofsson? Allen MacNeill? JAM? Keiths? Patrick Caldon? Larry Moran? Secondclass? Trrll? Alan Fox? Mercury? Robin Levett? Febble!? Steve Steve?!!

Hello!?

Where did everybody go?

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 598 599 600 601 602 [603] 604 605 606 607 608 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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