Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2014 10:40 AM
197 online now:
1.61803, Catholic Scientist, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons (5 members, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Post Volume:
Total: 733,019 Year: 18,860/28,606 Month: 2,131/2,305 Week: 336/671 Day: 11/57 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6263
64
6566
...
72Next
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 946 of 1075 (625540)
07-23-2011 9:09 PM


Why are there no human apes alive today?

Err, how about because there weren't any yesterday?


Replies to this message:
 Message 948 by Mazzy, posted 07-24-2011 12:34 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 965 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 947 of 1075 (625560)
07-24-2011 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 903 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 7:45 AM


Dr Adequate said

Yes, well, you were also certain that actual modern humans weren't humans. Your certainty isn't worth a tinker's damn. Though to give you credit, you are uncertain sometimes, as when you vacillated between the same skull being Australian, orangutan, or australopithecine.

Personally, my money's on the paleontologists being right and you being wrong.

And you putting your money on your researchers is fine. However a creationist has good reason for skepticism.

I remember things like this

'Modern man's earliest known close ancestor was significantly more apelike than previously believed, a New York University College of Dentistry professor has found

"Dr. Leakey produced an intrinsically biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development," said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and, together with colleague Francis Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, South Africa, a brain less than half the size of a modern human's. These characteristics make the 1.9 million-year-old early human skull more like those of two archaic, apelike hominids, Australopithecus and early Paranthropus, living at least three million and 2.5 million years ago, respectively.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/03/070324133018.htm

This ape, Rudolfensis, is dated to 1.9mya. It lived at the same time as Homo Erectus and Eragaster.

All the pictures you posted in message 903 are apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 7:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 965 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 948 of 1075 (625561)
07-24-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 946 by IamJoseph
07-23-2011 9:09 PM


Why are there no human apes alive today?
Err, how about because there weren't any yesterday?

Yep, I agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 946 by IamJoseph, posted 07-23-2011 9:09 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 949 of 1075 (625576)
07-24-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 938 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:12 PM


Mazzy Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Mazzy,

This is from the Forum Guidelines:

Last paragraph of the Forum Guidelines writes:

For the most part, members are expected to figure out for themselves how to stay within the guidelines. Moderators do not have the time to engage in discussions about violations or to coach members toward proper participation.

I've already gone considerably beyond what moderators normally do here in helping new members acclimate themselves to what is expected of discussion participants at EvC Forum. I've carefully considered whether I should invest more time in this endeavor, but it appears to me that you will continue to reject what I say as moderator and that there would be little point to it.

People are holding up a sort of mirror to you. True, it is affected by all their biases and opinions, but in the aggregate it is a pretty true picture. You can choose to reject what everyone is telling you, as you have been doing, or you can exercise a bit of introspection and engage in some self examination, seeking to understand what you are doing that is causing people to see you this way.

Let me respond to a couple things you said.

Mazzy writes:

Percy I have answered stacks of rebuttals.

You have clicked on the reply buttons of many messages and typed lots of text into message boxes, but you have never engaged the significant points, you rarely even quote what anyone says, most messages being just another essay repeating your original points yet again. Your evidence is often copious but almost always irrelevant. You seem unable and even uninterested in connecting relevant information to your positions. When people tell you this you just post another essay repeating your same points, but with new links to new but still irrelevant information.

If after several hundred messages you're still repeating the same points over and over again then something has gone wrong with the discussion.

The fact that I cannot respond to every one is hardly justification for accusing me of not taking up any challenge.

This is the second time you have replied as if I had said something that I definitely did not say. Throughout EvC Forum's history moderators have encouraged new members to take their time, not rush, not try to reply to everyone. No one's asking you to respond to every message or most messages or every point or most points. You're only being asked to engage meaningfully with the points you do choose to respond to. If moderators feel an important point is being missed then they can say so.

I am giving you another 24-hour suspension. During that period you can decide whether you're interested in figuring out how to constructively participate here. There will be no more coaching or coddling. If you decide to take an adversarial approach with moderators then there will be only one outcome: suspensions will become longer and more frequent and finally permanent.

Please, no responses to this message, or to any future moderation messages.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:12 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 950 of 1075 (625577)
07-24-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 939 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:19 PM


Hi Mazzy,

I would really love for you and DBlevins to have your one-on-one debate, but it will not happen unless there is a good outcome in this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:19 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11411
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 951 of 1075 (625585)
07-24-2011 7:13 AM


Statement of Topic
Hello everyone!

In Message 753 I announced that I would begin moderating this thread in a couple days, saying that discussion would continue for 300 messages after that point. I began actual moderation at Message 801, so this thread will continue until around 1100 messages, at which time I will request summations.

We've used up half the 300 messages and very little progress has been made, so I am going to narrow the topic considerably. All future discussion after this message will address this topic and only this topic:

  • The details and validity of the classification system that places Homo sapiens in the Hominidae family, popularly known as the "great apes", which itself resides within the Hominoidea superfamily, popularly known as apes.

Please, no responses to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 952 of 1075 (625614)
07-24-2011 1:34 PM


A ball is not a pork chop
There has been no progress because there's really nothing to progress here.

This isn't a debatable question.

It's a question of definitions.

Mazzy rejects the definition of a word and substitutes her own definition. In this case the word is "ape". A few hundred posts later and NO PROGRESS has been made.

That's because there's no progress to be made.

This is like arguing with a child who insists that the word "ball" means "pork chop".

It doesn't. That's not what the word means.

You can point it out in dictionaries. You can explain the origins of the word. You can demonstrate that the entire rest of the world has a shared understanding of the definition different than the child's claim.

But _none_ of that matters. The child sticks her fingers in her ears and screams "no! no! no! I want to eat a ball with apple sauce!"

That's the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.

So long as Mazzy insists on being the child, there's no debate to be had.

There's no reason to post pictures. There's no reason to ask for explanations. There's no reason to try and educate or even reason.

This entire post should consist of exactly 2 messages:

Mazzy: "Humans aren't apes"
Anyone else: "Actually, they are. Look it up."

END OF DISCUSSION.


Replies to this message:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 535 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 953 of 1075 (625649)
07-24-2011 8:23 PM


I think one of the points Mazzy is trying to make is that if neanderthal or homo erectus are fully human. Not half human, not caveman, not apeman, not transitional fossil, then why are they proclaimed as links between humans and apes. Anatomist Rudolf Virchow said that neanderthal were human in every respect, some appearing to be suffering from rickets or arthritis. Paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus said "Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans."

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 954 by Panda, posted 07-24-2011 8:48 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 956 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:57 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 954 of 1075 (625655)
07-24-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 953 by Portillo
07-24-2011 8:23 PM


Portillo writes:

Anatomist Rudolf Virchow said that neanderthal were human in every respect, some appearing to be suffering from rickets or arthritis.


Rickets and arthritis are not evidence of being human.
Kittens can get rickets; dogs can get arthritis.
Also, Rudolf Virchow died in 1902. He was not (for example) able to do a genetic comparison.
He also thought that the flattened skull was due to a powerful blow to the head.
It seems that most of his theories about neanderthals have been disproved by further discoveries.

Portillo writes:

Paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus said "Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans."


Erik Trinkaus also thinks that neanderthals are not human.
So, despite your quote suggesting that neanderthals are fully human, the person you quoted does not think they are.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 953 by Portillo, posted 07-24-2011 8:23 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 963 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 4:51 PM Panda has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 955 of 1075 (625663)
07-24-2011 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 936 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Comparative analyses of multiple alignments of small fragments of human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan sequence have revealed that the human genome is more similar to the gorilla genome than to the chimpanzee genome for a considerable fraction of single genes [2,1315]. Such a conflict between species and gene genealogy is expected if the time span between speciation events is small measured in the number of 2N generations, where N is the effective population of the ancestral species (see Figure 1).

How is this a problem? The authors explain that this is expected if the "time span between speciations evens is small". Overall, the chimp genome is still more similar to the human genome than it is to any other ape. How can this be if chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans all share a common ancestor but humans do not?

There is no morphological continuity at all.

Yeah, there is. H. erectus has a short, squat pelvis with femurs that bend towards the midline just as in humans and unlike other apes. This means that H. erectus has modern human features not found in other apes making it transitional between humans and other apes.

Obviously some creature would be more similar to mankind than an other. It happens to be chimps according to your biased algorithms.

It's not obvious at all. Please explain, keeping in mind that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans share a common ancestor within your baramin model. That common ancestor would need to also be close to humans. As the different ape lineages branch off from that common ancestor they should all acquire lineage specific mutations, none of which should make any of those lineages any closer to humans than the common ancestor was. If your model is true then humans should be genetically equidistant to ALL APE SPECIES, but they are not. Therefore, your model is falsified.

I have refuted this before. You need to pay attention.

"In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys -- but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

You need to pay attention as well. None of those insertions are orthologous which indicates insertion after common ancestry. The ERV's in the paper I discussed ARE ORTHOLOGOUS. Due to the random nature of ERV insertion, independent insertions will not occur at the same position in each genome, which is exactly what we see with PTERV-1 which invaded ape genomes after all modern lineages branched off from one another. Therefore, finding the same ERV in the same location in multiple species indicates that the insertion occurred in a common ancestor. This can be double checked by comparing LTR divergence within the orthologous ERV's as discussed in the paper I already cited.

You also do a fine job of twisting the context of the quote. The author was indicating that the species distribution falsifed the idea that PTERV-1 infected the common ancestor. You will notice that the author was not talking about HERV-K.

In fact, PTERV-1 actually strengthens my argument. Due to the fact that PTERV-1 is found in chimps and other apes but not in humans it offers a test of common ancestry. Given the species distribution of PTERV-1, evolution would PREDICT that none of these insertions should be found in orthologous positions, AND THEY ARE NOT. PTERV-1 actually supports my argument, not yours.

IOW, pointing to non-orthologous ERV's does not refute the evidence of orthologous ERV's.

I do not have to show anything like that at all.

If you can't demonstrate that humans do not share a common ancestor with other apes then don't assert that it is true.

So now you are an expert in evolution, creation and baraminology are you?

Yes, I am.

You do not get to choose what I use or don't.

Yes, I do. Shared ancestry has very real repercussions in the genetic data. There are markers that should be there if two species share a common ancestor, and markers that should NOT be there. Those are the facts. If you want to claim that humans and other apes do not share a common ancestor, then all I have to do is point to evidence that indicates just the opposite. ERV's are one small example of that data set which falsifies separate baramins for humans and other apes.

What you do need to do is understand that your likely's and maybe's as to why there are no intermediates alive today sits along side another several, equally robust hypothesis that suggest there never were any intermediates.

Wouldn't a transitional be more chimp-like than modern humans? Yes or no.

All life is very similar re MTDNA.

Why is that? According to you, each baramin was created separately by an all knowing and all powerful being who has unlimited resources and time. Why shouldn't all life have completely different mtDNA? Or completely different tRNA's for that matter?

In actual fact I have psoted info demonstrating that a chimp is 30% different to a human and this does not count the Y chromosome being remarkably different, the surface structure being different, the genome size is 10% different also.

Using the same method that demonstrated a 30% difference between chimps and humans, what is the difference between chimps and orangutans which you claim shares a common ancestor?

What you seem to forget is the method that was used, which is very misleading. In the paper, the author looked at 30 base pair stretches. If just one base differed in that 30 bp sequence then it was assigned 0% homology even though 97% of the bases were the same.

I have offered an alternative explanation as to why there are no intermediates today.

You haven't even defined what features an intermediate would need, so you can't make this claim. I will ask again, wouldn't an intermediate between humans and other apes have morphology that is more chimp like than what is found in modern humans?

It is only biased and desperate reasoning that searches for similarities and uses these to support ancestry.

Aren't you using similarity between H. erectus and other apes as the basis for determining that H. erectus shares common ancestry with other apes?

You do not have to like it, nor accept it. I am not here to change your mind only propose an alternative view that I feel is better backed by evidence.

Your view is no fossil, no matter how intermediate, can falsify creationism. Your view is dogmatic, unscientific, and unfalsifiable. If you think I am wrong, then please describe a fossil that would fit your description of intermediate and falsify separate baramins for humans and other apes.

You have very few fossils, it appears, that any of you are willing to put your credentials on as a human relative.

Due to universal common descent, all species are related to humans.

I have provided research that states we are not related nor descended from any erectus, perhaps not even in Africa.

How do chimp like features in H. erectus disqualify it from being related to humans? How do brow ridges and a prognathus eliminate H. erectus as a potential human relative? What disqualifies chimps and other apes from being human relatives? You haven't answered any of this, other than to state that your religious beliefs will not allow it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 2:53 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 961 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 1:34 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 956 of 1075 (625664)
07-24-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 953 by Portillo
07-24-2011 8:23 PM


I think one of the points Mazzy is trying to make is that if neanderthal or homo erectus are fully human. Not half human, not caveman, not apeman, not transitional fossil, then why are they proclaimed as links between humans and apes.

Mazzy has never defined what features a transitional fossil SHOULD have. Without this definition she can not claim that any fossil is transitional or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 953 by Portillo, posted 07-24-2011 8:23 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 957 of 1075 (625665)
07-24-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:29 PM


Larni .. the latest is that Neanderthal are human beings and no different to you or I as far a s humanity goes. They are 99.5% similar which is the same differences cited within the human population today.

Nice double standard you have there. That 99.5% similarity was a result of single base pair comparisons, not the 30 base pair comparisons that you use to say that chimps and humans are 30% different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:29 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 968 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 6:59 PM Taq has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 965 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 958 of 1075 (625903)
07-26-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 952 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 1:34 PM


Re: A ball is not a pork chop
Nuggin says

There has been no progress because there's really nothing to progress here.
This isn't a debatable question.

It's a question of definitions.

Mazzy rejects the definition of a word and substitutes her own definition. In this case the word is "ape". A few hundred posts later and NO PROGRESS has been made.

That's because there's no progress to be made.

This is like arguing with a child who insists that the word "ball" means "pork chop".

It doesn't. That's not what the word means.

You can point it out in dictionaries. You can explain the origins of the word. You can demonstrate that the entire rest of the world has a shared understanding of the definition different than the child's claim.

But _none_ of that matters. The child sticks her fingers in her ears and screams "no! no! no! I want to eat a ball with apple sauce!"

That's the beginning, middle and end of the discussion.

So long as Mazzy insists on being the child, there's no debate to be had.

There's no reason to post pictures. There's no reason to ask for explanations. There's no reason to try and educate or even reason.

This entire post should consist of exactly 2 messages:

Mazzy: "Humans aren't apes"
Anyone else: "Actually, they are. Look it up."

END OF DISCUSSION.

Nuggin one can google each species and find the current theories available that explain the demise of human/ape intermediates. I am happy to stop replying so that others can discuss these evolutionary explanations if you wish.

My offer is that there are no intermediates alive today because there never were any. That is a fairly typical creationist reply, given creationists do not accept sharing a common ancestor with apes.

Admin has made a request to narrow the thread and I intend to abide by his request.

Evolutionists have constructed various systems of classifications that creationists need to work with. Homonids is one classification
of modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus. Bipedalism was meant to be tied to increase in brain size which your researchers now state is not the case. Now there are many other theories that try to explain the rise of bipedalism in primates.

Bipedalism began 6mya according to some researchers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/03/080320183657.htm

A modern chimpanzee, an ape, is quite capable of walking upright when they need to. Ardi, 4.2mya, was found with ape feet and apparently was at least partially bipedal. Can you see why I am skeptical of your classification systems? It is kinda like eating balls with apple sauce in that ape feet and bipedalism do not go well together.

A ball doesn't mean pork chop the same way as bipedalism doesn't mean increase in brain size. It is amazing what both a child and science can learn with maturity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 952 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:34 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 959 by Granny Magda, posted 07-26-2011 12:09 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 960 by Nuggin, posted 07-26-2011 1:20 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 959 of 1075 (625912)
07-26-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 11:22 AM


Classifying Primates
Hi Mazzy,

Evolutionists have constructed various systems of classifications that creationists need to work with. Homonids is one classification of modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus.

Except that this isn't an entirely accurate picture, as has already been pointed out to you.

The grouping "Hominidae" may be comparatively modern but "evolutionists" were not the first to place humans and (non-human) primates in the same group. The first to categorise humans and (non-human) apes together was Linnaeus and Linnaeus was by no means an "evolutionist". Nonetheless, his masterwork, Systema Naturae places humans, chimps, monkeys and others in the same group; primates. Here is a quote from Linnaeus on that decision;

quote:
It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of Natural History.

Basically, he was aware of the disturbing theological implications of his system of classification, but he felt that the facts outweighed such concerns. It was not that he was hostile to religion, far from it. Indeed, he saw himself as being engaged in the glory of God;

quote:
Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit

"God created, Linnaeus organised"

Carolus Linnaeus


quote:
Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum

"The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone."

Carolus Linnaeus


Linnaeus saw the study of biology as granting him a glimpse into the mind of God and considered this a form of religious devotion. However, this did not cause him to flee from the evidence of the natural world when it proved problematic for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The classification of humans as primates is nothing new, it is in fact very old, dating back to 1758, and far from being part of some "evolutionist" plot, it was fist documented by a very devout creationist Christian.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed double word.


On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 686 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 960 of 1075 (625934)
07-26-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 958 by Mazzy
07-26-2011 11:22 AM


Round and round and round
My offer is that there are no intermediates alive today because there never were any. That is a fairly typical creationist reply, given creationists do not accept sharing a common ancestor with apes.

Yes, we know. It was wrong when you said it the first time. It was wrong when you said it the 100th time. It's wrong the 1000th time.

It's going to keep being wrong no matter how many times you say it.

Frankly, none of us on this side of the debate even believe that YOU believe this claim. You've certainly failed to present any evidence to support it.

It's becoming very apparently that you're just repeating yourself because you've got nothing else to say.

If that's your plan, you should really pick something better to squawk about because this claim is just worthless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 958 by Mazzy, posted 07-26-2011 11:22 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
6263
64
6566
...
72Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014