Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 1:55 PM
342 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, Joe T, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (9 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,024 Year: 28,630/21,208 Month: 696/1,847 Week: 71/475 Day: 18/53 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 169 (605176)
02-17-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
02-17-2011 12:24 PM


Re: "Widely Used" Technologies
Does that mean that it hasn't been "absorbed" or "grappled with" by human society as whole?

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Clearly it's been absorbed by a specific subset of human society, and completely unabsorbed by an enormous portion of human society.

The singularity would be when that subset of society able to absorb the most recent technological changes shrinks and shrinks until it is zero. Given historical trends this seems obviously true. What possible reason is there to believe that it won't?

You claimed that historical trends can't induce an ahistorical, unique event in the future. But that's nonsense - you're in a plummeting airplane, the altimeter is spinning down like a desk fan, and you're claiming that while it's true that historically the altitude of this plane is clearly in a trend of decline, it's never crashed in the past, therefore we can't use history to prove that it's going to. Nothing to worry about!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 12:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 12:56 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 122 of 169 (605179)
02-17-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 12:30 PM


The Ever Shrinking Subset
Crash writes:

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

It doesn't. In fact it was me pointing out that there is effectively a two tier system of absorption in place.

Crash writes:

Clearly it's been absorbed by a specific subset of human society, and completely unabsorbed by an enormous portion of human society.

Well if we are going to talk about subsets your relentless assertions that Facebook isn't widely used become meaningless don't they? Facebook is widely used by one subset but not by another.

Crash writes:

The singularity would be when that subset of society able to absorb the most recent technological changes shrinks and shrinks until it is zero. Given historical trends this seems obviously true. What possible reason is there to believe that it won't?

Consumer demand and commercial viability? If the subset of people willing and able to purchase a particular technology is so small as to lack commercially viability then who is going to pay to develop it in the first place?

Crash writes:

You claimed that historical trends can't induce an ahistorical, unique event in the future.

No I didn't. I disputed the mathematical certainty of the 'Singularity Moment' that you had been asserting as mathematically inevitable. It isn't mathematically inevitable at all. It is mathematically predicted if you make certain assumptions. That is very different.

CRash writes:

Nothing to worry about!

There is potentially much to worry about. I gave some reasons why there might be a limit to technological progress in Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh? (Message 89) and The XBox Challenge (Message 90).

Neither were very cheerful.

And I'll leave you with another thought. If a particular communications technology (such as the internet and it's future forms) facilitates the ability for human society as a whole to absorb technology at a greater rate then you might end up with a less tiered and more even distribution of absorption across humanity as a whole rather than the ever shrinking puddle model you predict.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 12:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 1:39 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 02-18-2011 3:46 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 169 (605186)
02-17-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Straggler
02-17-2011 12:56 PM


Re: The Ever Shrinking Subset
Well if we are going to talk about subsets your relentless assertions that Facebook isn't widely used become meaningless don't they?

Why? Surely "widely used" isn't synonymous with "used by a very narrow subset of everybody." That's like saying that indie pop bad "Florence and the Machine" is "widely listened to", where by "widely listened to" you mean "everybody who likes 'Florence and the Machine' listens to 'Florence and the Machine."

Look, I'm not disputing Facebook's popularity. But it's an almost textbook demonstration of the difference between the technological "haves" and the "have-nots." For the "haves", Facebook has revolutionized almost every aspect of our online lives; it's now the authentication mechanism for tens of thousands of other websites, it's integrated to almost every consumer electronic - I can check status updates on my Xbox, for god's sake - it has wide-reaching consequences in almost every field of human endeavor for people like us. Potential dates are checking it. Potential employers are checking it.

But for 92 out of 100 human beings on planet Earth, Facebook has absolutely no relevance at all. Most of those 92 people have never even heard of it. They don't know anybody who uses it. They're not able to use it, even if they wanted.

Can you explain to me how that kind of usage pattern - almost nobody uses it, but among the people who do, they use it a lot - is consistent with the description "widely used"? If that's just a function of us having utterly different definitions for words, then I'll try to pick a different word. It's just an example of a technology that, to me, hasn't really been absorbed by society except by us, us who are using our own personal computers to talk on the Internet. Which, an intelligent person like yourself should understand is a really weird and unique thing to be doing. Our tastes and habits really don't represent the vast majority of human beings.

If the subset of people willing and able to purchase a particular technology is so small as to lack commercially viability then who is going to pay to develop it in the first place?

Well, that's reasonable. But maybe the designers of technology will simply be mistaken about what society will be able to absorb. Or perhaps they will have abdicated the design of technology to some other technology with its own notions of what products should be designed.

I couldn't say. I view the notion of the singularity as a shrinking predictability horizon on the effects of technology on human society. (Don't tell me you can't figure out what that means, it's perfectly clear.) In 1800, predictions could be (and were) reliably made about the state and impact of technology on the society of 1820. In 2011 I think it's utterly impossible to predict the impact of technology on the society of 2031. If the trend continues, mathematically it becomes impossible on some future Tuesday to predict the state and impact of technology on Wednesday.

It is mathematically predicted if you make certain assumptions.

I've defended the assumptions as justified.

If a particular communications technology (such as the internet and it's future forms) facilitates the ability for human society as a whole to absorb technology at a greater rate then you might end up with a less tiered and more even distribution of absorption across humanity as a whole rather than the ever shrinking puddle model you predict.

Well, I would hope so. I'd like to see the technology "haves" increase, not decrease. Some technologies seem to be having that effect - cell phones, for instance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 12:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 2:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 2:36 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 127 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 2:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 124 of 169 (605188)
02-17-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 12:13 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
At this point I need more than your gape-mouthed assertions of non-comprehension to respond to. Your relationship to technology is different than your grandmothers - you've absorbed Facebook/iPhones/internet dating/etc but she has not.

What precisely is it that confuses you about that concept?

The confusion is that instead of telling what it means you give examples of what it could mean. Again, I need to ask, did you come up with the idea of "cultural absorption of technological change" or is it from someone else?. If it is from somewhere else maybe you can direct me to them.

Your claim now seems to be that the singularity is the point where technological changes are no longer absorbed by anyone. Currently some subset of people can absorb any new technology. But there will be a point in the future where the subset that can absorb a new technology will effectively shrink to zero? Is that your premise?

So what do you believe happens then? Or maybe you can point us to someone's writings on this. As Straggler I do not see any evidence of the inevitability you seem to think there is.

This does not mean, as you claim, that I do not think technological advancement will continue.

There are many technologies that were not 100% "culturally absorbed"(if I understand correctly what you mean by this). HOw many millions of people have never flown? How many millions have never ridden in a vehicle?

As I asked before, why is the technological changes of today so vastly different than those of the past?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 12:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 4:36 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 125 of 169 (605189)
02-17-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 1:39 PM


Re: The Ever Shrinking Subset
In 1800, predictions could be (and were) reliably made about the state and impact of technology on the society of 1820.

Really.

Could you show us how this was done? Or examples of predictions made.

There were a lot of technological innovations in that time period. I never knew that they were highly predicted.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 1:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 126 of 169 (605190)
02-17-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 1:39 PM


Granny Power and The Ever Shrinking Subset
The bottom line here is the bottom line. The guy who develops the technology that the whole world wants to buy will end up in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs stratosphere of wealth. The guy who develops the great technology that nobody wants to buy will have to get a day job to fund his bedsit hobby. As long as we live in a world where such economic factors play a significant role in the development of technology your "ever-shrinking-subset" prediction remains unlikely to come to actuality.

Crash on mathematical inevitability writes:

I've defended the assumptions as justified.

Assumptions, justified as you believe them to be or otherwise, are not a basis for the mathematical inevitability you have been proclaiming.

Crash writes:

I'd like to see the technology "haves" increase, not decrease. Some technologies seem to be having that effect - cell phones, for instance.

You previoulsy asked about my grandmother. The closest I have to a grandmother does her shopping online using an iPad. But the Atari ST I had as a kid was a complete enigma to her. Throw in the rampant scramble to take advantage of the "emerging markets" of the most populous countries and it seems clear that mass appeal and ease of use is the predominant dierction of consumer technology today.

Of course this granny-friendly seperation of usability and knowability means that the white, affluent tech-head subset you have been talking about will be forever doomed to fixing the fucking things for their spouses and mothers and grandmothers when they inevitably go a bit wrong.

But that is just my personal axe to grind


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 1:39 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 4:39 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 127 of 169 (605191)
02-17-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 1:39 PM


Technological Changes 1800-1820
Here are a number of technological innovations during this period.

Please show how they were reliable predicted. Also, please explain how the majority of the "culture"(by culture do you mean specifically, do you mean Western European culture?) easily "abdorbed" them.
All from Wiki.

1801
Joseph-Marie Jacquard develops the Jacquard Loom, in which holes strategically punched in a pasteboard card direct the movement of needles, thread, and fabric.

In optics, interference between light beams is discovered by Thomas Young (17731829), showing the wave nature of light.

1802
Charles's law (the law of volumes), describing how gases tend to expand when heated, is first published in France by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac

Thomas Wedgwood discovers a method of creating photographs using silver nitrate

1803
William Symington demonstrates his Charlotte Dundas, the "first practical steamboat", in Scotland.

1804
The drug morphine is isolated

William Hyde Wollaston discovers palladium, and how to make malleable platinum.

Alexander von Humboldt discovers that the Earth's magnetic field decreases from the poles to the equator

The Cornishman Richard Trevithick's newly-built "Penydarren" steam locomotive operates on the Merthyr Tramroad between Penydarren Ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil and Abercynon in South Wales, following several trials since February 13, the world's first locomotive to work on rails.

1806
The Camera Lucida (Latin: lighted room) is invented and used as an aid for drawing perspective accurately.

1808
Carl Friedrich Gauss finds methods for determining an orbit based on three observations. He also presents his least squares method.

1810
Nicolas Appert publishes L'art de conserver pendant plusieurs annes toutes les substances animales ou vgtales, the first description of modern food preservation using airtight containers.

1811
Mary Anning discovers the fossilised remains of an Ichthyosaur at Lyme Regis.

1815
Atomic decay is discovered by Swedish chemist Jns Jakob Berzelius in gadolinite, a radioactive mineral damaged by alpha particles released in its own activity.

1816
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868) discovers stress birefringence.

1817
Pierre-Joseph Pelletier and Joseph-Bienaime Caventou isolate chlorophyll

1818
Robert Stirling builds the first practical version of his Stirling engine

1819
Invention of the breech-loading flintlock by John Hall.
Invention of the stethoscope by Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec.

1820
Charles Xavier Thomas de Colmar makes his "Arithmometer", the first mass-produced calculator.
Antarctica is sighted for the first time by British navy captain Edward Bransfield.

Again how is "absorption" different now?

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 1:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 169 (605205)
02-17-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
The confusion is that instead of telling what it means you give examples of what it could mean.

I told you what it means, and your response was utter, dunder-headed confusion about the concept. Then I tried to provide illustrative examples, and now you're complaining that I've given you examples instead of telling you what I mean.

Theodoric, addressing your intellectual deficiencies aren't something I'm able to do. If you're unable to connect an example to an explanation - both of which I've already provided - because of the personal vendetta against me you've already admitted to, it's simply time for you to drop the pretense that you're interested in discussion. Now I see you're quibbling with the idea that the difference in society between 1800 and 1820 is less than the difference between 2011 and 2031 (or, for that matter, 1980 and 2000.) Are you actually interested in discussion, or in simply contradicting me at every point?

You're not the first to play that tiresome game. Holmes beat you to it long ago, and was much better at it. At least his posts contained something besides relentless contrarianism. Oni does it too, but at least he's funny. You're just a tiresome troll.

As I asked before, why is the technological changes of today so vastly different than those of the past?

Think hard! I'm sure you'll figure it out. Here's a hint - today's technology is based on the technology of the past, and forms the basis for the future's technological change, not the other way around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 2:20 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 4:52 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 169 (605206)
02-17-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
02-17-2011 2:36 PM


Re: Granny Power and The Ever Shrinking Subset
Of course this granny-friendly seperation of usability and knowability means that the white, affluent tech-head subset you have been talking about will be forever doomed to fixing the fucking things for their spouses and mothers and grandmothers when they inevitably go a bit wrong.

Boy, tell me about it. Ever since I got married it's two families' worth of tech support I'm doing now. I'm hardly in the door at her parent's house for Christmas before they're like "hey, while you're here..."

The guy who develops the technology that the whole world wants to buy will end up in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs stratosphere of wealth. The guy who develops the great technology that nobody wants to buy will have to get a day job to fund his bedsit hobby. As long as we live in a world where such economic factors play a significant role in the development of technology your "ever-shrinking-subset" prediction remains unlikely to come to actuality.

This is probably the most compelling case against the singularity, yet. I'm not saying I'm convinced by it, nor by any argument that relies on profit motive - frankly, people do a lot of things that have nothing to do with money - and I continue to believe that the predictability horizon of the impact of technology is shrinking, but you've probably made a pretty good case against Kurzweil's notions, at the very least.

Despite Theodoric's idiotic invocation of the Jaccard loom and Charles' law, it just can't be denied that it was a lot easier to predict life in 1820 from 1800 than to predict 2000 from 1980, and life in 2031 seems to me to be utterly unknowable by basically anyone. If there's an argument that I'm wrong about that I've not heard it. (Listing all the things that happened between 1800 and 1820 certainly isn't it.)

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 2:36 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 4:56 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 130 of 169 (605208)
02-17-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 4:36 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
Now I see you're quibbling with the idea that the difference in society between 1800 and 1820 is less than the difference between 2011 and 2031 (or, for that matter, 1980 and 2000.)

Can you quantify this difference? And I do not see where I have said such a thing. Again you are making up things. You made a claim that in 1800 they could predict what technology would be in 1820. I think you are wrong and unless you can provide evidence I thin k I am safe to assume you are wrong.

You're not the first to play that tiresome game. Holmes beat you to it long ago, and was much better at it. At least his posts contained something besides relentless contrarianism. Oni does it too, but at least he's funny. You're just a tiresome troll.

If you can not defend your assertions with a coherent argument it is your problem.

Again for the third time.

Is the absorption idea yours or did you read it somewhere? I am very interested in trying to get an explanation of what it means in relationship to the 'singularity". So far your explanations have been shown to be inadequate and basically. as Jar would say, word salad. I am hoping there is an originator of this idea that could explain it instead of giving examples of what it "may" mean.

Theodoric, addressing your intellectual deficiencies aren't something I'm able to do.

Classic froggie. When you can't support your assertions you go to the personal attacks. Stay classy my friend.

If you're unable to connect an example to an explanation - both of which I've already provided

Then again you really haven't provided an explanation have you. I have looked at the posts you told me to and reponded showing you that there was no explanation.

Here's a hint - today's technology is based on the technology of the past, and forms the basis for the future's technological change, not the other way around.

Hasn't this always been true?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 4:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 5:18 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 131 of 169 (605210)
02-17-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 4:39 PM


Then back your assertion
Despite Theodoric's idiotic invocation of the Jaccard loom and Charles' law, it just can't be denied that it was a lot easier to predict life in 1820 from 1800 than to predict 2000 from 1980, and life in 2031 seems to me to be utterly unknowable by basically anyone. If there's an argument that I'm wrong about that I've not heard it. (Listing all the things that happened between 1800 and 1820 certainly isn't it.)

Show us how any of these were predicted. Show us someone that made accurate predictions of the technology of 1820 before 1800. You have not just said it could have been done, but you stated it was done.
Message 123

In 1800, predictions could be (and were) reliably made about the state and impact of technology on the society of 1820.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 4:39 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 169 (605213)
02-17-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
And I do not see where I have said such a thing.

You made a claim that in 1800 they could predict what technology would be in 1820. I think you are wrong

Theodoric, these two statements of yours were adjacent sentences. Not only can you not understand my posts, apparently you can't understand your own!

Is the absorption idea yours or did you read it somewhere?

Asked and answered, Theodoric. It's time for you to either stop participating in this thread, or begin participating in a constructive and honest manner. I'm simply not prepared to allow you to lie about me.

When you can't support your assertions you go to the personal attacks.

I don't recall making a personal attack. But I do recall your personal attack:

quote:
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you.
Most of the creationists do not know that they are wrong or are unwilling to face their own ignorance.

You on the other hand continue to build strawmen and out right lie. I have no respect for that.


Scurrilous and unfounded, indicative of a deep personal, irrational animus against me. You admitted it, Theodoric. And now you have the gall to accuse me of making personal attacks? Unbelievable.

I have looked at the posts you told me to and reponded showing you that there was no explanation.

You didn't "show" anything. You simply denied that what was written in my posts was written there. Part and parcel with your general level of gape-mouthed denialism.

Hasn't this always been true?

Yes, Theodoric. Now you're catching on!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 4:52 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:27 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 133 of 169 (605214)
02-17-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 5:18 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
Yes, Theodoric. Now you're catching on!

Then why is now different?

Seems to be I am circling back to what I originally asked.

Nice how you refuse to address some substantive questions in my post.

Can you quantify this difference?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 5:18 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 5:35 PM Theodoric has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 169 (605215)
02-17-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 5:27 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
Then why is now different?

Now isn't different. The technology of the present continues to be built on the technology of the past. It's the fact that "now" is not different that will result in the singularity. You're the one asserting that present trends won't continue into the future.

We have a term for the mathematical model where the rate P'(x) of the growth or decline of something at time x - say, a population - is proportional to the size or amount P(x) at time x. You may wish to look up that term, because it is instructive to the case of where future circumstances build off of present ones.

Seems to be I am circling back to what I originally asked.

Why don't you circle back to all those times I already answered it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:27 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:40 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 135 of 169 (605216)
02-17-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by crashfrog
02-17-2011 5:35 PM


Maybe getting someplace
Now we are getting someplace.

So now isn't different, then why is there going to be a "singularity" now? Instead of in the past or instead of the far, far future.

So people of 1800's were able to "absorb" the technological changes of the time more than people today can?

Also still waiting for you to show us how people of 1800 could predict the technology of 1820. Or do you want to take a mulligan on that?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 5:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2011 6:24 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017