Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 12:21 AM
400 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), bluegenes, ramoss (3 members, 397 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,898 Year: 6,504/21,208 Month: 2,265/2,634 Week: 453/572 Day: 0/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 211 of 253 (782452)
04-23-2016 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by AlphaOmegakid
04-23-2016 3:17 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
AlphaOmegakid writes:

When is this going to stop with you Percy.

It will stop telling you you're wrong when you begin getting things right.

Yes, I did! [talk about atavisms]

No, you didn't. The post I replied to (Message 168) never mentioned atavisms, was not about atavsims, and neither was the Struthers paper that it referenced.

Yes, in other messages you talked about atavisms, but not in Message 168 that I replied to. You're just talking nonsense to claim that because Message 132 and Message 145 mentioned atavisms that Message 168 must also be about atavisms. It wasn't.

I only made a couple brief points when I replied to your Message 168, and neither had anything to do with atavisms:

  • You're still misusing the word fraud. You seem to think anything you disagree with a fraud.

  • Orientation isn't what tells us the Struthers bones were a pelvis and hind limbs.

I can only guess that you keep ranting on that you were really talking about atavisms to distract from your more significant errors.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-23-2016 3:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-23-2016 5:19 PM Percy has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 212 of 253 (782455)
04-23-2016 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Percy
04-23-2016 3:46 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy this is beyond ridiculous. Now you are inserting words as if they are mine when they are not. Your mind, must be reading in a lot about what I don't say.

Percy writes:

yes, I did! [talk about atavisms]

That's not what "yes, I did" refers to. Back up and read my post again. I'm not going to requote to refute your poor comprehension.

I never once claimed that the Struthers paper had anything to do with atavisms. What I claimed is that the data within is foundational to understanding whale anatomy and that provides a foundation from which to refute atavism in future papers. Now what about that can you not understand?

Percy writes:

Yes, in other messages you talked about atavisms, but not in Message 168 that I replied to. You're just talking nonsense to claim that because Message 132 and Message 145 mentioned atavisms that Message 168 must also be about atavisms. It wasn't.

I only made a couple brief points when I replied to your Message 168, and neither had anything to do with atavisms:

Yes, you were arguing that the bones were homologous to the hind limbs. Now reread Message 171 which was my response to you. Read it slow.

AOK writes:

Percy, You must agree that I am not arguing anything about the homology of these bones in this recent excercise. In fact, I was clear that this argument was strictly about atavisms. I claimed that there is no scientific evidence of cetacean atavism. I can accept the homology of these bones and still make that argument. That is why I am using the designation p bone , f bone and t cartilage for clarity even though I don't agree with this inference.

My reference back to atavism is an explicit reference back to my main claim in Message 132. What I am saying is I can accept homology of these bones, and still make my argument against atavism. Do you understand now.

Homology is irrelevant to my argument about atavism. I can agree with homology or disagree with homology, and it doesn't change my Message 132 argument against atavism. Now do you understand?

That's why I am using Struthers paper. I will use facts that have nothing to do with homology to refute the papers that claim atavism. Note. I do not say anything about the homology of these bones in my refutation of Andrews claims. There is other evidence that refutes it.

So at this point, your comments about the homology of these bones don't matter to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 04-23-2016 3:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 04-24-2016 8:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 213 of 253 (782474)
04-24-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by AlphaOmegakid
04-23-2016 5:19 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
AlphaOmegakid,

In your own mind your arguments tie together in ways making no sense to anyone else, in particular your belief that the Struthers paper that contains indisputable evidence of right whale pelvis and hind limb bones is foundational to proving that such bones are not atavistic when they appear in other whales that don't normally possess them. Everyone else is interpreting your Struthers evidence opposite from you.

As I've said, I had only two brief points when you went began nonsensically claiming your Message 168 about the Struthers paper was somehow related to your atavism arguments:

  • You're still misusing the word fraud. You seem to think anything you disagree with a fraud.

  • Orientation isn't what tells us the Struthers bones were a pelvis and hind limbs.

I may as well also comment that examining this poor quality image at this level of detail makes no sense. Here it is blown up a bit to show what a blurry ambiguous mess the whale portion really is:

There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation.

You're obviously going to sift through every report of whale atavisms and call them frauds, but you call everything you disagree with a fraud. Your conspicuous lack of anything resembling objectivity is going to convince most people of the opposite of what you say.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-23-2016 5:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 12:12 PM Percy has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 214 of 253 (782506)
04-25-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Percy
04-24-2016 8:53 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
percy writes:

In your own mind your arguments tie together in ways making no sense to anyone else, in particular your belief that the Struthers paper that contains indisputable evidence of right whale pelvis and hind limb bones is foundational to proving that such bones are not atavistic when they appear in other whales that don't normally possess them.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Something more than "perhaps" will be nice.

You're still misusing the word fraud. You seem to think anything you disagree with a fraud.

I have answered this accusation more than once from you, and you have provided nothing but "perhaps".

  • Perhaps you could provide evidence that a representation of these bones wasn't made, when the museum clearly advertises these bones.
  • Perhaps you could present evidence that the representation that the museum made was true, while I have presented evidence that it is completely false.
  • Perhaps you could present evidence that the museum and university of Aberdeen are unaware of what is in Struthers paper, while I have presented evidence that they have Struthers paper, because they quoted from it.

Every single element of the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation is there. Perhaps you could provide evidence that the definition is faulty. Instead, you demean my evidentiary arguments while you present nothing but demagoguery.

  • Orientation isn't what tells us the Struthers bones were a pelvis and hind limbs.

I have agreed to this multiple times now. I am not arguing the homology of these bones now. So your point is?????????????????????????????????????????

I may as well also comment that examining this poor quality image at this level of detail makes no sense. Here it is blown up a bit to show what a blurry ambiguous mess the whale portion really is:

There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation.

Yet this is the evidence that evos claim as evidence of atavism. Thank you for making my claim that there is no Scientific evidence of atavism in this paper from Andrews it is nothing more than "meaningless speculation".

You're obviously going to sift through every report of whale atavisms and call them frauds, but you call everything you disagree with a fraud. Your conspicuous lack of anything resembling objectivity is going to convince most people of the opposite of what you say.

You are obviously incorrectly speculating. I assume you read the Japanese papers already (that I sent you to post)and have found them lacking. Actually, none of these are frauds, but other evidence will speak against atavism. Now will you kindly post them for others to read. I will be starting with Ogawa soon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Percy, posted 04-24-2016 8:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 3:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 215 of 253 (782507)
04-25-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Blue Jay
04-23-2016 2:32 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
So, in a nutshell, the three of us who have said that the leg looks closer to perpendicular are just being dishonest?

That's not the nutshell I intended. My son is working on another way to show that these "legs" are not even 1/2 the length stated multiple times in this paper. I will post this as soon as I get it.

In the meantime, don't you think if the leg was coming out at 90 degrees from the body that you could see shadowing from the end of the "leg"?. It is a cylindrical element.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2016 2:32 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 2:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 216 of 253 (782517)
04-25-2016 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 12:20 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.

AOkid writes:

In the meantime, don't you think if the leg was coming out at 90 degrees from the body that you could see shadowing from the end of the "leg"?. It is a cylindrical element.

I was going to argue for something more like 70 degrees, with a subtle backwards curvature to it.

-----

I want to reiterate, once again, that I still think the hoax hypothesis is valid. But I feel like an even halfway competent hoaxer would have gotten the measurements right, especially if they planned to be so specific with their claims, so it seems strange to base a hoax allegation on inconsistent measurements. Certainly a "fish story" allegation would be appropriate here, but "hoax" goes a bit beyond what this measurement evidence supports.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 12:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:12 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 217 of 253 (782522)
04-25-2016 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 12:12 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
AlphaOmegakid writes:

percy writes:

In your own mind your arguments tie together in ways making no sense to anyone else, in particular your belief that the Struthers paper that contains indisputable evidence of right whale pelvis and hind limb bones is foundational to proving that such bones are not atavistic when they appear in other whales that don't normally possess them.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Something more than "perhaps" will be nice.

I summarized *your* position (and characterized it as making no sense), not mine. You're in essence asking me to "provide evidence" that I summarized your position correctly, which is a silly thing to ask. If you think I summarized your views incorrectly and that they *do* make sense then just provide corrections. But I think if you give what I wrote another read you'll see I've got it right and you're just misinterpreting plain English again.

You're still misusing the word fraud. You seem to think anything you disagree with a fraud.

I have answered this accusation more than once from you, and you have provided nothing but "perhaps".

I think you have problems with both language and logic.

Every single element of the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation is there.

Except the important ones: conclusive evidence it's wrong, and purposeful intent.

I have agreed to this multiple times now. I am not arguing the homology of these bones now. So your point is?????????????????????????????????????????

You claimed that if the bones were instead oriented in what you consider the proper position that no one would mistake them for a pelvis and limbs. That is incorrect. They look like a pelvis and limbs regardless of orientation, and others besides me have also corrected you on this point. It's the most important reason the museum display couldn't be fraud, because there's no advantage to misdisplaying the pelvis and hind limbs.

Yet this is the evidence that evos claim as evidence of atavism. Thank you for making my claim that there is no Scientific evidence of atavism in this paper from Andrews it is nothing more than "meaningless speculation".

What I actually said was, "There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation." These words can only be interpreted as referring to recent posts about the image, not to the Andrews paper. You're either purposefully engaging in misrepresentation of what I said, or you're again displaying your problem with language.

You are obviously incorrectly speculating. I assume you read the Japanese papers already (that I sent you to post)

No, I haven't read them, but I will be upload them to the site soon. I'm making a fair effort helping you make your points, the least you could do is exert some effort interpreting English correctly.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 12:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:43 PM Percy has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 218 of 253 (782523)
04-25-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Blue Jay
04-25-2016 2:34 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
I want to reiterate, once again, that I still think the hoax hypothesis is valid. But I feel like an even halfway competent hoaxer would have gotten the measurements right, especially if they planned to be so specific with their claims, so it seems strange to base a hoax allegation on inconsistent measurements. Certainly a "fish story" allegation would be appropriate here, but "hoax" goes a bit beyond what this measurement evidence supports.

Well if you notice, Andrews forces 15" of the cartilage femur back inside the whale, because he recognizes the story doesn't add up. Andrews states four times that the 50" is outside the body of the whale. Also 30" of the 50" is cartilage. At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached. If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in. This leg is holding against gravity with the whale on its back / side this doesn't seem reasonable as well.

I don't think Andrews is hoaxing anyone here. personally, I think it is the whalers hoaxing both Andrews and the bosses. They were known to pull a stunt on Andrews during his expeditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 2:34 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 3:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 4:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 219 of 253 (782527)
04-25-2016 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 3:12 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
AlphaOmegakid writes:

At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached.

I very much doubt that "cartilage goes limp" at death.

If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in.

Rigor mortis is a temporary condition beginning shortly after death and lasting only around a couple days.

The paper doesn't seem accessible right now, at least not to me, so I can't check the details of what you claim the paper said (A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale). If it becomes accessible later I'll upload that, too, so we don't lose access again.

AbE: Paper just became available again, I'll upload it to the site when I get a chance.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 220 of 253 (782528)
04-25-2016 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
04-25-2016 3:10 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
I summarized *your* position (and characterized it as making no sense), not mine. You're in essence asking me to "provide evidence" that I summarized your position correctly, which is a silly thing to ask. If you think I summarized your views incorrectly and that they *do* make sense then just provide corrections. But I think if you give what I wrote another read you'll see I've got it right and you're just misinterpreting plain English again.

You've straw manned my position and not summarized it at all. You're creating a fictitious argument that I do not present. The problem is, I can read just fine, I just can't find the words that you attribute to me in your strawman mind like the ones you just presented. That's why I asked you for evidence, because those are not my words, or my arguments. I assumed they were yours. They are unrecognizable related to anything I have said.

What I actually said was, "There is much that isn't clear about the whale in that image. The recent detailed examination can only yield meaningless speculation." These words can only be interpreted as referring to recent posts about the image, not to the Andrews paper. You're either purposefully engaging in misrepresentation of what I said, or you're again displaying your problem with language.

No I'm purposefully showing how inconsistent your arguments are.

So the fact that the image is bad means we can't interpret anything regarding the length of the "leg, but of course we can accurately ascertain that it is indeed a leg. Of course! I understand completely.Actually, I think it is a racing stripe!(sarcasm intended!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 3:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 5:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 221 of 253 (782531)
04-25-2016 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 3:12 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Hi, AOkid.

AOkid writes:

Well if you notice, Andrews forces 15" of the cartilage femur back inside the whale, because he recognizes the story doesn't add up.

You have a habit of inferring things that you shouldn't. You don't really know what Andrews recognized: you're assigning him a motive that's consistent with your overall narrative, and nothing more. Any academic peer reviewer or half-competent lawyer would have called you on this.

That said, I had noticed that Andrews' and Ruck's claims differed in that regard: Andrews seems to be assuming that 4'2" was the measurement of the total limb, rather than the measurement of the limb's extension from the body, and that the "femoral cartilage" was, in fact, entirely internal.

A deliberate hoax is only one of many plausible explanations for this disparity.

AOkid writes:

At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached. If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in. This leg is holding against gravity with the whale on its back / side this doesn't seem reasonable as well.

This is another good point that I hadn't considered. I know very little about post-mortem (?) behavior of vertebrate carcasses, so I can't really raise any specific arguments here at all. I'm going to need to do some reading before I'm willing to proceed with this aspect of the discussion.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 5:54 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 222 of 253 (782534)
04-25-2016 5:15 PM


Papers for AlphaOmegakid
These are the papers from the Whales Research Institute:

This is the Roy Chapman Andrews paper:


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 223 of 253 (782535)
04-25-2016 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by AlphaOmegakid
04-25-2016 3:43 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
AlphaOmegakid writes:

That's why I asked you for evidence, because those are not my words, or my arguments. I assumed they were yours.

So when I referred to it as "your belief" you thought I was talking about my belief?

You know, you can't hide your problems with language. It's not like they're subtle.

No I'm purposefully showing how inconsistent your arguments are.

Not so far.

So the fact that the image is bad means we can't interpret anything regarding the length of the "leg, but of course we can accurately ascertain that it is indeed a leg.

If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the red arrow was pointing at, I doubt anyone would have a clue:

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 3:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 04-25-2016 6:55 PM Percy has responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 224 of 253 (782537)
04-25-2016 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue Jay
04-25-2016 4:26 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Blue Jay writes:

You have a habit of inferring things that you shouldn't. You don't really know what Andrews recognized: you're assigning him a motive that's consistent with your overall narrative, and nothing more. Any academic peer reviewer or half-competent lawyer would have called you on this.

Ya think? HMMMMMM. Let's look at the evidence.....

Mr. Ruck writes in his letter:

Mr. Ruck writes:

This particular whale was a female humpback of the average length with ele­mentary legs protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches, covered with blubber about one-half an inch thick.

He clearly emphasizes "from the body". At the end of the letter he states again:

Mr. Ruck writes:

The two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches, and possibly more by this time. At any rate the total length of the leg before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh was, as before stated, about 4 feet, 2 inches, from the body.

Now that's twice in the letter that this is restated and emphasized!

Now Andrews says:

Andrews writes:

Mr. Ruck reports that the total length of the leg "before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh" was about four feet and two inches. The skeletal remains in my possession consist of two bones and two heavy cartilages. When placed in position as in Fig. 2, the total length is 31"

He clearly recognizes the difference in length which he attributes to shrinkage of the cartilage. That's a valid inference, but notice he left off "from the body" in the length description which was emphasized twice in the letter.

Andrews writes:

Mr. Ruck says that the end terminated in a "kind of round knob like a man's clenched fist," that the total length was about four feet and two inches, and that it was covered with blubber about one-half inch thick.

Once again Andrews conveniently leaves out "from the body".

There's an old saying...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Blue Jay you should be shamed. Twice, while quoting Mr. Ruck on certain facts regarding the length of these "Legs" Andrews conveniently leaves out the specific claim of Mr. Ruck that the length is from the body.

Now put that in any court of law and the jury can easily see that either Andrews is willingly ignorant of the facts as stated or he is trying to white wash them away. I stand by my claim that Andrews recognizes the problems, and I will add that any academic peer review would have called Andrews on this. It doesn't add up!

It stinks to dead whale high heaven!

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added a few words for clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2016 4:26 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2016 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 225 of 253 (782540)
04-25-2016 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
04-25-2016 5:26 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy writes:

If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the red arrow was pointing at, I doubt anyone would have a clue:

I agree 100%. If you presented this picture to random people and asked what the bones are, I doubt anyone would have a clue:

Yet you say:

Percy writes:

That's pretty odd that you think legs can't be visualized just because the bone orientation is changed.

and:
Most normal people can recognize objects even when they're in unfamiliar orientations. It is very strange of you to claim that they look like legs in one orientation and not another.

I don't think either look like legs, but somehow you think legs are easily recognized in one picture, but not in the other. I doubt you can recognize the inconsistency with that.?

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : corrected some spelling

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 04-25-2016 5:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 04-26-2016 6:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017