RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2015,19:42   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 07 2015,10:51)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 07 2015,00:03)
Make hotel reservations and start packing your bags. Attending this "Scientific" conference is a must for anyone who wants to follow "The Truth, Wherever It Leads".

http://www.uncommondescent.com/neurosc....omments


ETA: At the conference circle jerk, there will be a:

"2:00 PM Panel Discussion with Responders: William Dembski, Ph.D (Discovery Institute), Fazale Rana, Ph.D. (Reasons to Believe), and Joel Chan, Ph.D. (Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University)"  (bolding in original)

http://www.christianscientific.org/details....tsburgh

I'd contribute to a GoFundMe program to send Wesley or someone to the Panel "Discussion" for Dembsi to "respond" to.

We'd need to know who they would let in the door.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry56232

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

    
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2015,20:35   

Huh, looks like I was briefly unbanned then banned again. Tried to ask News what exactly in the quoted passages in her latest complaint about tax-funded education is "barf," but comment doesn't appear.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2015,20:11   

But of course! After all, asking somebody what they meant could be taken as implying that they don't know what they're typing about...

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2015,20:30   

gordo is so arrogant that he even edited one of arrington's comments:




Hey barry, how does it feel to be gordo's slave? You might as well give UD to him since he controls it anyway.



ETA: UD link

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religio....-558217

Edited by The whole truth on April 08 2015,18:36

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,13:58   

Banny Arrogant also can't quite force himself to give specifics:

Quote
48
Barry ArringtonApril 9, 2015 at 8:07 am
It is amusing watching Zachriel intentionally miss WJM’s point. He is obviously not able to bear the moral contradictions of his metaphysics, so he pretends they don’t exist.

If I had to pretend the moral contradictions of my metaphysics do not exist in order to live with myself, I hope I would reevaluate them. That’s just me though.

49
Mark FrankApril 9, 2015 at 8:15 am
Barry

Zachriel has addressed WJM’s points with remarkable concision and accuracy as he has done many times before. It would be interesting to see which statement of WJM’s you think he has not addressed.

50
Barry ArringtonApril 9, 2015 at 8:21 am
It is also amusing to watch Mark Frank jump to Zachriel’s defense, because he too cannot face the moral contradictions entailed by his metaphysics.

51
Mark FrankApril 9, 2015 at 8:32 am
#50 Barry

I am glad you know so much about our inner psyche’s and that it gives you so much amusement. I guess it is more satisfying than identifying the point that Z failed to address.

52
Barry ArringtonApril 9, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Mark @ 51,

That would, of course, be redundant with WJM’s work. Everyone sees it, and “everyone” includes you. You only pretend that you don’t. If that’s what it takes to cope with your cognitive dissonance, I suppose you have to do it. I just have to think it would be so much easier to finally admit the obvious to yourself


Onward Christian soldiers...

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,15:36   

Not exactly UD but paid IDiot David Kinkyfluffer at the DI's Evolution Spews and Snooze points out science's failing.  Apparently it's a negative that real scientists use highly technical language in their actual research papers then often simply the details for popular press articles.

Suspicious? Darwin Defenders Have Two Modes of Communication -- One for the Uninitiated, One for the Guild

Kinkyfluffer then brags about how ID's approach is better
Quote
David Klinghoffer:  "Well, what about that? Actually, ID advocates address the scientific community and the general public -- and in much the same language. That's probably a bit of a self-imposed handicap for us. ID theorists like Meyer, Behe, or Dembski don't dumb it down. It likely would be strategic if they did, though less honest."

The issue isn't that the IDiots don't "dumb it down".  The problem is the IDiots start with things dumb and never "smarten it up" to acceptable scientific standards.  It's 100% pure hand-waving bullshit aimed at the lay public all day, every day.   :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,16:14   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 09 2015,16:36)
Suspicious? Darwin Defenders Have Two Modes of Communication -- One for the Uninitiated, One for the Guild

One thing you learn when you study communication--as my alma mater requires for science majors--is that your subject, language, graphics, values, etc have to match your audience.

So of course you talk to lay people differently than you talk to colleagues. That's communication 101.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,18:24   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 09 2015,13:36)
Not exactly UD but paid IDiot David Kinkyfluffer at the DI's Evolution Spews and Snooze points out science's failing.  Apparently it's a negative that real scientists use highly technical language in their actual research papers then often simply the details for popular press articles.

Suspicious? Darwin Defenders Have Two Modes of Communication -- One for the Uninitiated, One for the Guild

Kinkyfluffer then brags about how ID's approach is better
 
Quote
David Klinghoffer:  "Well, what about that? Actually, ID advocates address the scientific community and the general public -- and in much the same language. That's probably a bit of a self-imposed handicap for us. ID theorists like Meyer, Behe, or Dembski don't dumb it down. It likely would be strategic if they did, though less honest."

The issue isn't that the IDiots don't "dumb it down".  The problem is the IDiots start with things dumb and never "smarten it up" to acceptable scientific standards.  It's 100% pure hand-waving bullshit aimed at the lay public all day, every day.   :D

Oh, they try to get technical at times.  It ends in FIASCO.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2015,20:39   

Re "So of course you talk to lay people differently than you talk to colleagues. That's communication 101. "

Well sure, but communication is what UD wants to prevent.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,04:58   

Mapou begins to peel back the veil....



:O



REPENT WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME!!!!

http://rebelscience.blogspot.co.uk/....t.c....t.co.uk

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,19:02   

Quote
...And the bezan shall be huge and black, and the eyes thereof red with the blood of living creatures, and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, there'll be a great rubbing of parts. Yeeah...

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,19:10   

Gary Gaulin with good grammar.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2015,19:50   

"And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment…at this time, a friend shall lose his friends’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock..."

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,07:22   

...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,09:43   

JoeTard slips up, actually makes a testable claim about ID.

 
Quote
Joe April 11, 2015 at 8:36 am

According to ID it didn’t take billions of years to get humans.


OK Chubs, according to ID how long did it take to get humans?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,14:34   

We posted this comment, but it was put into moderation.  
Quote
Barry Arrington: Zachriel absolutely refuses to address the OP and set forth step by step how the analysis is flaws.

Barry asked a question {in the original post}, is it possible to imagine a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing?

In order to answer the question, we asked for clarification by posing a pertinent question going to the heart of what is meant by subjectivism. According to whom?

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

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: April 11 2015,16:41   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 11 2015,06:22)
...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...

Is that what happens after somebody crosses the streams?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,18:57   

Re "according to ID how long did it take to get humans? "

From what starting point?

Not to mention the little detail that to label a particular generation of our ancestors as the "first" homo sapiens, is a subjective judgment.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,19:45   

Among other things, slimy sal demonstrates how utterly stupid he is when it comes to fossils:

"4. The age of the fossil (really time of death of the fossils) is not strictly speaking a YEC issue, it is not an age-of-the-universe issue, it is a time of death issue. Empirical evidence strongly argues the fossil record is recent, not old. Short time frames favor ID over evolution, and hence evolutionary theory, as stated is likely wrong. The time of death of the fossils is recent and independent of the radiometric ages of the rocks they are buried in. A living dog today could be buried in 65 million year old rocks, it doesn’t imply the dog died 65 million years ago after we exhume it. Follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence says the fossils died more recently than evolutionists claim. C14 traces are ubiquitous in the carboniferous era, and the best explanation is recency in the time of death of fossils."


Part of comment number 11, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ability

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

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,20:31   

Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,19:45)
Among other things, slimy sal demonstrates how utterly stupid he is when it comes to fossils:

"4. The age of the fossil (really time of death of the fossils) is not strictly speaking a YEC issue, it is not an age-of-the-universe issue, it is a time of death issue. Empirical evidence strongly argues the fossil record is recent, not old. Short time frames favor ID over evolution, and hence evolutionary theory, as stated is likely wrong. The time of death of the fossils is recent and independent of the radiometric ages of the rocks they are buried in. A living dog today could be buried in 65 million year old rocks, it doesn’t imply the dog died 65 million years ago after we exhume it. Follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence says the fossils died more recently than evolutionists claim. C14 traces are ubiquitous in the carboniferous era, and the best explanation is recency in the time of death of fossils."


Part of comment number 11, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ability

I'd really like to see Sal try to "bury" something in rock.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,23:05   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 11 2015,18:31)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,19:45)
Among other things, slimy sal demonstrates how utterly stupid he is when it comes to fossils:

"4. The age of the fossil (really time of death of the fossils) is not strictly speaking a YEC issue, it is not an age-of-the-universe issue, it is a time of death issue. Empirical evidence strongly argues the fossil record is recent, not old. Short time frames favor ID over evolution, and hence evolutionary theory, as stated is likely wrong. The time of death of the fossils is recent and independent of the radiometric ages of the rocks they are buried in. A living dog today could be buried in 65 million year old rocks, it doesn’t imply the dog died 65 million years ago after we exhume it. Follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence says the fossils died more recently than evolutionists claim. C14 traces are ubiquitous in the carboniferous era, and the best explanation is recency in the time of death of fossils."


Part of comment number 11, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ability

I'd really like to see Sal try to "bury" something in rock.

Yeah, me too, and I'd like to see him find "living dog" fossils in situ in Cretaceous rocks/sediments. I seriously doubt that he has ever found any fossils anywhere in his entire ignorant life.

Slimy sal has apparently never seen nor heard the term in situ while going through all that skoolin' he's so proud of, and he must think it's impossible to tell when fossils are actually from the sedimentary layer they're found in.

Hey slimy sal, if you're reading this, I have a suggestion: Go to Wyoming and actually look for and find fossils. Spend at least a few years there and search many of the exposed formations. Start with the Big Horn Basin and the surrounding mountains. Go ahead, you incredibly stupid and arrogant YEC IDiot-creationist. See if you can find any "living dog" fossils in Cretaceous or other very old rocks/sediments. You'd be lucky to survive a for a whole day, let alone find any fossils.

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

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,23:24   

Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,23:05)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 11 2015,18:31)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,19:45)
Among other things, slimy sal demonstrates how utterly stupid he is when it comes to fossils:

"4. The age of the fossil (really time of death of the fossils) is not strictly speaking a YEC issue, it is not an age-of-the-universe issue, it is a time of death issue. Empirical evidence strongly argues the fossil record is recent, not old. Short time frames favor ID over evolution, and hence evolutionary theory, as stated is likely wrong. The time of death of the fossils is recent and independent of the radiometric ages of the rocks they are buried in. A living dog today could be buried in 65 million year old rocks, it doesn’t imply the dog died 65 million years ago after we exhume it. Follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence says the fossils died more recently than evolutionists claim. C14 traces are ubiquitous in the carboniferous era, and the best explanation is recency in the time of death of fossils."


Part of comment number 11, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ability

I'd really like to see Sal try to "bury" something in rock.

Yeah, me too, and I'd like to see him find "living dog" fossils in situ in Cretaceous rocks/sediments. I seriously doubt that he has ever found any fossils anywhere in his entire ignorant life.

Slimy sal has apparently never seen nor heard the term in situ while going through all that skoolin' he's so proud of, and he must think it's impossible to tell when fossils are actually from the sedimentary layer they're found in.

Hey slimy sal, if you're reading this, I have a suggestion: Go to Wyoming and actually look for and find fossils. Spend at least a few years there and search many of the exposed formations. Start with the Big Horn Basin and the surrounding mountains. Go ahead, you incredibly stupid and arrogant YEC IDiot-creationist. See if you can find any "living dog" fossils in Cretaceous or other very old rocks/sediments. You'd be lucky to survive a for a whole day, let alone find any fossils.

I fairly certain his head would explode when he passed one of the road signs that show you the age of a particular layer. We passed several of those on our way to/from Yellowstone last summer.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2015,23:52   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 11 2015,21:24)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,23:05)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 11 2015,18:31)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ April 11 2015,19:45)
Among other things, slimy sal demonstrates how utterly stupid he is when it comes to fossils:

"4. The age of the fossil (really time of death of the fossils) is not strictly speaking a YEC issue, it is not an age-of-the-universe issue, it is a time of death issue. Empirical evidence strongly argues the fossil record is recent, not old. Short time frames favor ID over evolution, and hence evolutionary theory, as stated is likely wrong. The time of death of the fossils is recent and independent of the radiometric ages of the rocks they are buried in. A living dog today could be buried in 65 million year old rocks, it doesn’t imply the dog died 65 million years ago after we exhume it. Follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence says the fossils died more recently than evolutionists claim. C14 traces are ubiquitous in the carboniferous era, and the best explanation is recency in the time of death of fossils."


Part of comment number 11, here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ability

I'd really like to see Sal try to "bury" something in rock.

Yeah, me too, and I'd like to see him find "living dog" fossils in situ in Cretaceous rocks/sediments. I seriously doubt that he has ever found any fossils anywhere in his entire ignorant life.

Slimy sal has apparently never seen nor heard the term in situ while going through all that skoolin' he's so proud of, and he must think it's impossible to tell when fossils are actually from the sedimentary layer they're found in.

Hey slimy sal, if you're reading this, I have a suggestion: Go to Wyoming and actually look for and find fossils. Spend at least a few years there and search many of the exposed formations. Start with the Big Horn Basin and the surrounding mountains. Go ahead, you incredibly stupid and arrogant YEC IDiot-creationist. See if you can find any "living dog" fossils in Cretaceous or other very old rocks/sediments. You'd be lucky to survive a for a whole day, let alone find any fossils.

I fairly certain his head would explode when he passed one of the road signs that show you the age of a particular layer. We passed several of those on our way to/from Yellowstone last summer.

In Wind River Canyon, between Shoshoni and Thermopolis? There are signs like you described there. Those signs must irritate the shit out of YECs who drive through the canyon. :)


http://thermopoliswyoming.blogspot.com/2009....-3.html

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

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

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,00:22   

Does Sal have a day job? All positions available in Seattle seem to be occupied.

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

- William Dembski -

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,01:24   

Mark Frank, have you been banned at UD?  Barry has started a new thread, "MF Runs Away; Anyone Else Care to Play?", where he says this:  
Quote
Mark Frank apparently no longer wants to play. So I will throw the question I asked him open to any of the other materialists who post here.

Barry doesn't usually get that cocky unless he's made sure the person he's taunting can't reply.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,01:37   

Quote (sparc @ April 12 2015,00:22)
Does Sal have a day job? All positions available in Seattle seem to be occupied.

A couple of years ago he put up an unusually honest post on UD where he admitted he was a failure as an engineer or scientist despite going to college for it twice and said he now has an unspecified position in the "finance" field, which I took to mean he's clerking at a payday loan store or similar.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....of-2013

Sorry for the naked URL.  Some kind of iPad problem.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,03:19   



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

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,03:35   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2015,23:37)
 
Quote (sparc @ April 12 2015,00:22)
Does Sal have a day job? All positions available in Seattle seem to be occupied.

A couple of years ago he put up an unusually honest post on UD where he admitted he was a failure as an engineer or scientist despite going to college for it twice and said he now has an unspecified position in the "finance" field, which I took to mean he's clerking at a payday loan store or similar.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....of-2013

Sorry for the naked URL.  Some kind of iPad problem.

I'm inclined to think that sal's unspecified "finance" position is him standing on street corners pestering passersby for their spare change while drooling sermons about the universe being 6,000 years old.  ;)

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

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,07:00   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 11 2015,14:34)
We posted this comment, but it was put into moderation.  
Quote
Barry Arrington: Zachriel absolutely refuses to address the OP and set forth step by step how the analysis is flaws.

Barry asked a question {in the original post}, is it possible to imagine a universe in which torturing an infant to death for personal pleasure is actually an affirmatively good thing?

In order to answer the question, we asked for clarification by posing a pertinent question going to the heart of what is meant by subjectivism. According to whom?

We posted several comments and they showed as in moderation, but have since disappeared. Apparently, when Barry says moderation, he means the posts will be deleted.

The ban occurred on a post called "MF Runs Away; Anyone Else Care to Play?"

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

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2015,07:39   

On a thread Barry Arrington started about torturing babies:

Quote
Barry Arrington: You are a fool, an arrogant and tiresome one at that, which is a very toxic combination. You think you are so smart and sophisticated. Any ten year-old would know you are an idiot.

Someone ought to ban that person!

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

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

   
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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