Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:06 AM
346 online now:
Coyote, edge, Faith (3 members, 343 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,194 Year: 23,800/21,208 Month: 1,765/2,468 Week: 274/822 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 61 of 124 (671542)
08-27-2012 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
08-26-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Scientists control science
And yet you still have not presented a working definition for "atheist". And it should be noted that your Message 26 was edited into something completely different after most of us had responded to it. And that latter version of the message still fails to provide us with your definition. Until you have presented a cogent and workable definition of your idea of "atheist", all your prattle posted here is absolutely meaningless.

It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed.

Actually, that is half-true. Ever hear the term, "Dixie-crat"? Well, since after the Civil War, the South had been pre-dominantly Democrat, since the Reconstruction had made that region poison for any Republican. Going into the 60's, the greatest opponents to segregation and civil rights were from Democrat politicians.

But then (according to a three-part PBS series by Bill Moyers in the mid-to-late-80's that also first informed me about the Christian Reconstructionist movement that formed the political agenda of the Radical Religious Right), President Carter organized a conference on the family which took an honest look at the structure of modern families (very complex with, due to divorces and remarriages, multiple "parents") and, in that process, alienated the conservative Christians (to apply a single label to a broad classification). This resulted, especially in the South, in a mass defection to the Republican Party, especially in Reagan's first election to the Presidency. At that point, the fundamentalist mind-set left the Democratic Party and transplanted itself into the Republican Party; both parties changed at that point.

After that point in time, the Republican Party continued to cater to the fundamentalists while the Democratic Party was freed from that particular mental aberration. Then the Republican Party continued to fall ever deeper into the thrall of fundamentalist/etc ideology, while the Democratic Party was freed from that corrupting influence. The Republican Party careened ever further to the right while the Democratic Party remained at the center. Until we are where we are now, with the Republican Party trapped in an ideological black-hole from which nothing can escape.

I've heard of several former Republicans leaving that party because it no longer represents their views; how many have gone in the other direction (outside of the old anti-segregation Dixie-crats)?

Anyway, we are now left with Democrats who deal with the real world and Republicans who are committed ideologues. Republicans used to deal with the real world, but now they no longer can do so. And you have the audacity to claim that Republicans have not changed? Bullshit!

And if you want to claim "it's the Democrats who have changed", then please show us! OK, my family is originally from Kansas, but a lot of US Census reports places us in Missouri, so please pretend that I'm from Missouri: Show me!

Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, the above statement probably reflects the overwhelming opinion of those making decisions about scientific employment and (to a significant percentage of the population) morally troubling decisions like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, the effects of abortion, etc.

OK, so please explain why more Republicans don't become scientists. Nothing's keeping anybody from studying the sciences nor in becoming scientists. So why don't they? You know full well that politics have nothing to do with it, so how can you explain it?

Now of course, one problem is how many scientists used to be Republicans, but then found that position to be untenable? After all, the GOP has changed radically. Another problem is that the Republican Party now envelopes itself in ideology. While ideology is a normal part of religion, it has absolutely no place in science, which dedicates itself to reality. The Republican Party is inextricably enmeshed in ideology, whereas the Democratic Party deals with reality. So right from the start, Republican ideology is foreign to science.

So, to return to your original question of why more Republicans don't become scientists: we find that Republicans find themselves enmeshed in so much anti-science, anti-reality ideology that they simply do not gravitate to the sciences.

The fault is not within your imagined "atheists", but rather within yourselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 6:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2320
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 62 of 124 (671543)
08-27-2012 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
08-26-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Scientists control science
Interesting that marc900 should quote this;

quote:
Militant atheist is defined as one who is militantly opposed to theism, theists, and religion. Militant atheists have an extreme hostility towards religious theism that entails a desire to see religion suppressed by force. The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist.

Even more interesting that he should stop at that point... just before the article says this;

quote:
This definition of militant atheist is usually meant pejoratively because the label is typically applied to atheists who do not seek the forced suppression of religion or theism. Instead, religious apologists apply the label "militant" to atheists generally — or at least any atheist that isn't quiet, meek, and obsequious.

I genuinely have no idea why marc9000 would think that this supports his case, nor can I comprehend why he would actually provide a link through to the web-page that proves that he is talking nonsense. Does he imagine that we are too lazy to check? Did he perhaps simply stop reading after he found the bit that he wanted? I cannot say.

What I can say is that just because "The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist." by theists who hate us and wish to misrepresent us, does not mean that all atheists, new atheists, atheists+, etc. are in fact militant atheists. In actual fact, I have never met a genuine militant atheist.

Anyway, we've already seen marc9000's definition of "atheist"; it is basically someone who fails to agree with marc9000 about religion and politics. That pretty much makes this entire thread a waste of time. Perhaps marc9000 should try again, only in English, as opposed to playing Humpty-Dumpty and changing words to mean whatever he wants them to mean.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 6:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 10:32 AM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 08-27-2012 10:09 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 08-28-2012 12:48 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 63 of 124 (671544)
08-27-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Tangle
08-27-2012 3:17 AM


How do American atheists determine the science practiced by neighbour here in England who's looking into the genetic basis for addiction?

Clearly he's an atheist, or he'd seek the basis for addiction in demonic possession and the cure for it in prayer, like all real Christians would do.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 08-27-2012 3:17 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 64 of 124 (671546)
08-27-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
08-26-2012 7:52 PM


Re: Atheists do the darndest things
Hi Marc,

Dwise1 has just noted that you edited your definition of atheist in Message 26 to be wickedness. I'm going to have to disallow this definition, too, because there are no statistics on how many wicked people are scientists, so you would have no data to argue from. Also, because wickedness is subjective there is no objective way to determine if someone is wicked or not. Stephen Weinberg is definitely an atheist by the definition everyone else here is using, but whether he is also wicked is likely not something we could ever agree on, and the same is true of all the rest of the scientists in the NAS and the world.

Please use a mainstream definition of atheist appropriate for this context. This definition from Answers.com should work fine:

  • a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

  • --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:52 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

        
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7429
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005
    Member Rating: 4.0


    (1)
    Message 65 of 124 (671547)
    08-27-2012 9:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by marc9000
    08-26-2012 7:46 PM


    But the NAS is composed mainly of atheists/agnostics, and they don’t always answer to government.

    So what role does NAS have in funding decisions, that it does without answering to government? What are you proposing as an alternative?

    What input should they take from taxpayers, and how should that be done?

    It's time for politicians and 90% of the general public to wake up to just how "new atheist" the scientific community has become.

    I get that - but what input should NAS take from taxpayers and how?

    You'll have to support your contention that the people responsible for this discrimination were atheists.

    The “Duck Test” takes care of it.

    And in what way does 'does not hire someone who promotes ID' give you enough data to work on to apply the 'duck test'? Talk me through it.

    In this controversy, neither side automatically takes remarks from the other side at face value.

    I'm not sure that 'children' really makes sense in the quote you provided. But let's say it - are you saying there is something wrong about gradually illumination children?

    When ID proponents claim that religion and ID are separate, do you chide atheists for not automatically accepting it?

    The evidence is that ID has a religious origin, and was designed to try and make religious apologetics legal in the classroom. Do you have comparable evidence that Darwin was imploring us to propagandize to children, as you seem to be implying?

    For further food for thought consider this: What is the average age for a child of Christian parents to be introduced to Christianity? What is the average age for Christian parents to introduce them to evolution? How many schools designed for children are dedicated to teaching them evolution? How many Sunday Schools are there?

    Yeah, when the Republicans start supporting government funded scientists more regularly, maybe they'll win more scientist's votes.

    That could be a hard sell, since the Republicans seem to have a much better understanding of the U.S. financial problems.

    Why does having a 'much better understanding of the U.S. financial problems' mean they don't tend support scientific research as much as, say, the Democrats?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

        
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 9916
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 66 of 124 (671550)
    08-27-2012 10:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
    08-27-2012 6:38 AM


    Re: Scientists control science
    Anyway, we've already seen marc9000's definition of "atheist"; it is basically someone who fails to agree with marc9000 about religion and politics. That pretty much makes this entire thread a waste of time.

    I disagree that the thread is a waste of time. We are learning quite a bit about how marc9000 views things and I find his view point quite interesting. In the long run perhaps threads like this save time.

    I genuinely have no idea why marc9000 would think that this supports his case.

    I don't think creationists are actually lying when they quote mine. Marc9000 believes he has caught the author in an admissions of his true feelings.

    9000's position is irrational, and you don't have to be an atheist to appreciate that. He won't be satisfied until science kowtow's to the opinions of people he admits are a small minority. Why in the world Moose thought this nonsense was Post of the Month material is a complete mystery to me.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

    “Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 6:38 AM Granny Magda has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 12:31 PM NoNukes has responded

        
    Theodoric
    Member
    Posts: 5765
    From: Northwest, WI, USA
    Joined: 08-15-2005


    (1)
    Message 67 of 124 (671551)
    08-27-2012 10:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 26 by marc9000
    08-22-2012 8:03 PM


    Words are so hard
    You obviously have no idea what the term archaic means. I guess that is just another area where you need to improve your grasp of the subject matter.

    You really should use a standard definition that most people agree on if you want to discuss something.


    Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

    "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by marc9000, posted 08-22-2012 8:03 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 68 by jar, posted 08-27-2012 10:44 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 29363
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 68 of 124 (671552)
    08-27-2012 10:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Theodoric
    08-27-2012 10:34 AM


    Re: Words are so hard
    And he is quoting from their definition of "atheism" and not "atheist".

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2012 10:34 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

      
    Kairyu
    Member (Idle past 1153 days)
    Posts: 162
    From: netherlands
    Joined: 06-23-2010


    Message 69 of 124 (671554)
    08-27-2012 11:59 AM


    smoke and mirrors
    Last time I checked, linguistic breakdown of the word atheism/atheist results in the conclusion that is it the word theism, belief in God, with the ''a'' meaning the absence of the belief in question. At least, so I thought.

    I must have been deceived by the fiendish secular community because this vile, vile word just happened to have a ''a'' in front of it, like other words in the system, and the ''theism'' must have been one of the most sorrowful coincidences to be so very similar to the word theism! That, or I have no choice to conclude theism always meant ''non-wickedness''.


      
    Granny Magda
    Member
    Posts: 2320
    From: UK
    Joined: 11-12-2007
    Member Rating: 4.8


    (3)
    Message 70 of 124 (671555)
    08-27-2012 12:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
    08-27-2012 10:32 AM


    Re: Scientists control science
    Hi NoNukes,

    I disagree that the thread is a waste of time. We are learning quite a bit about how marc9000 views things and I find his view point quite interesting.

    In a clinical sense perhaps.

    I think that marc9000 has already made his opinions clear; anyone who disagrees with him about science, politics or religion is an atheist and therefore wicked. This makes me an atheist, but it also makes Percy an atheist, it makes the Pope an atheist... Basically, it's just a palce-holder insult for anyone marc9000 disapproves of. He uses the term "liberal" in much the same way.

    In the long run perhaps threads like this save time.

    I doubt it. Tangle was the first to point it out; marc9000's title contains three words and he has chosen idiosyncratic definitions for all of them. That is not an approach that's likely to help clarify anything. It may appeal to marc9000 as a way to rationalise the cognitive dissonance arising from his rich fantasy life, but as actual communication, it's valueless.

    I don't think creationists are actually lying when they quote mine. Marc9000 believes he has caught the author in an admissions of his true feelings.

    Like I say, perhaps he's not deliberately lying, but certainly he is guilty of intellectual dishonesty. I mean, look at this, from the very page that marc9000 linked to;

    quote:
    My dictionary defines [militant] as "aggressive or vigorous, especially in support of a cause." But the word is used all too freely in the feebler sense of "holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like." Fore example, when Richard Dawkins is asked about this religious beliefs and replies "I'm an atheist, and i have no time for religion," he is at once accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a "militant atheist." So, if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword."
    - R.L. Trask, Mind the gaffe: the Penguin guide to common errors in English

    That was right there on the page he quoted from and yet he is doing precisely what this quote warns against. Whether he is lying or merely deluding himself, something is going wrong here.

    And as for his absurd claim that by "atheist" he means "wicked person", I'm flat out calling that a lie. I think that marc9000 knows full well that he's equivocating there and he's doing it deliberately.

    Mutate and Survive


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 10:32 AM NoNukes has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 2:55 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

        
    Taq
    Member
    Posts: 7140
    Joined: 03-06-2009
    Member Rating: 3.9


    (1)
    Message 71 of 124 (671556)
    08-27-2012 1:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
    08-26-2012 7:33 PM


    But different people have different definitions of what a pseudoscientist is. Some think Michael Shermer is a pseudoscientist. But since the NAS is in control, it defines someone like Michael Behe as a pseudoscientist. And so Michael Shermer is in!

    Behe admitted under oath that in order for ID to be science you would have to redefine what science is, and that redefinition would also include astrology. Behe admits that ID is pseudoscience. He just doesn't care.

    I realize there are established procedures for many activities in scientific/government organizations. I’m suspicious of humans that “serve as advisors”, humans that are more and more willing to give offence to religion as they attempt to make science the all encompassing worldview that they seek for it. Defined procedures can be heavily tweaked in politics, and as we’re learning, in science.

    This is projection at its best. This is exactly what the ID movement is all about. The ID movement is a political action group that seeks to inject secterian religious beliefs into the public classroom. It also seeks to remove science that conflicts with their secterian religious beliefs. The ID movement is NOT a scientific movement. There is no ID research going on. It is COMPLETELY political.

    I say that we should take politics out of science and let the actual research stand.

    If I can’t determine religious beliefs of certain authors, then it’s NOT POSSIBLE for them to discriminate against someone, or some scientific idea that they don’t like? If that were true, we could save ourselves a lot of time and money with the legal system. All we’d have to do is ask the accused if they committed the crime. If they say no, drop the case. Your logic is flawed in comparison to that of Razd.

    We are not judging a person's science by their religious beliefs since religions beliefs have nothing to do with science. Problems only arise when someone rejects scientific findings because of their religious beliefs, and this is exactly the case with ID and creationism as well as religiously motivated rejection of evolution.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:33 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

      
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 9916
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 72 of 124 (671565)
    08-27-2012 2:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
    08-27-2012 12:31 PM


    Re: Scientists control science
    NoNukes writes:

    In the long run perhaps threads like this save time.

    GM writes:

    I doubt it. Tangle was the first to point it out; marc9000's title contains three words and he has chosen idiosyncratic definitions for all of them. That is not an approach that's likely to help clarify anything. It may appeal to marc9000 as a way to rationalise the cognitive dissonance arising from his rich fantasy life, but as actual communication, it's valueless.

    Exactly. And some people will be persuaded not to make futile attempts to communicate/debate with him, saving them time. As you indicated, interesting "in a clinical sense..."

    Like I say, perhaps he's not deliberately lying, but certainly he is guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

    Maybe. I'll admit to a reluctance to accuse someone of dishonesty until I've completely ruled out the possibility of ineptness. I think marc9000 believes what he presented as being helpful to his argument. The problem is that it would not be all that helpful even if it were accurate. Of course there are some militant atheists around. I doubt that 9 Grand can point to any on the NAS without doing even more equivocating.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

    “Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 12:31 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by jar, posted 08-27-2012 3:01 PM NoNukes has responded

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 29363
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 73 of 124 (671566)
    08-27-2012 3:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by NoNukes
    08-27-2012 2:55 PM


    Re: Scientists control science
    And in the end, it is reality that controls science despite what marc9000 might wish.

    No matter how fervently he might wish it, things like young earth, Creationism, the Biblical Flood, the Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve will never again be considered as scientific.

    It really is that simple.

    Reality won.


    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2012 2:55 PM NoNukes has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 08-28-2012 11:46 AM jar has responded

      
    Blue Jay
    Member (Idle past 227 days)
    Posts: 2843
    From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
    Joined: 02-04-2008


    Message 74 of 124 (671596)
    08-27-2012 10:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
    08-27-2012 6:38 AM


    Re: Scientists control science
    Hi, Granny Magda.

    Granny Magda writes:

    Does he imagine that we are too lazy to check? Did he perhaps simply stop reading after he found the bit that he wanted? I cannot say.

    I might be too lazy to check. That, or too apathetic. I mean, he was quoting About.com.

    Granny Magda writes:

    In actual fact, I have never met a genuine militant atheist.

    I have. At least, I've met a guy that everybody else seems to think is a militant atheist. I've heard him mock religion a lot. He makes fun of me, too (Mormons and polygamy, you know), but I take it all as jokes, and I make fun of his hair, so we get along just fine.

    When we had to choose one of the fake grant proposals we would fund, he picked mine. But, make no mistake, he did it militantly!


    -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

    Darwin loves you.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 6:38 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

      
    hooah212002
    Member (Idle past 433 days)
    Posts: 3180
    Joined: 08-12-2009


    (3)
    Message 75 of 124 (671598)
    08-28-2012 12:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
    08-27-2012 6:38 AM


    Re: Scientists control science
    In actual fact, I have never met a genuine militant atheist.

    Because they don't exist. "Militant atheists" is a term, IMO, coined by the religious in an attempt to basically say "see, you atheists are just as dogmatic as us" due to the accusations of violence performed in the name of religion. Throw "militant" in front of a term and watch as people associate it with violence. And rightfully so. However, those that are acually labeled as militant are nothing more than atheists who actually speak up against religion. Generally, these are your "new atheists". Although, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is hardly "new" and definitely more "militant" than anyone alive today. She did more for atheism, anyways. Atheism+ is a different name for feminism and a new way to ostracize a group of people already all too familiar with being ostracized. However, now it is being done from within. Unnecessary derision at its finest.

    More on topic: Science isn't something that can be controlled in the way the OP hopes to point out. Science is a method, plain and simple. All the "evidence" laid out in the OP was, for the most part, how science gets conveyed to the general public. How journalist report science says absolutely nothing about the method of science or what happens in science. What the OP hopes to do, IMO, is make a claim that religious people, seemingly only the ones exactly like him, are directly barred from performing science. This is wholly untrue. Any creationist, IDist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist etc. is free to publish actual science. What they don't get to do,however, is change the rules that are already laid out and have been established for centuries as to how to acually do science. This means testable hypotheses and repeatable results; something creationism or ID has failed miserably at. And that is not for a lack of trying or funding. As far as funding, DI has plenty to test for ID or for any number of things, they just choose to donate to silly things like Ark replicas or creation theme parks.

    If there actually is mostly atheists who are published, working scientists, that is because the god bit is a worthless endevour and does nothing to further our knowledge of anything. This is what the evidence tells us. When the god believers put forth some evidence for this god character, you will DEFINITELY see more theistic scientists and few, if any, atheist ones. That is not to say there are NO non-atheist published, working scientists because that would be a false statement. Plenty of scientists are able to compartmentalize their beliefs and perform sound science. But once that compartment becomes contaminated, out goes the god bit. Conversely, if that compartment leaks, out goes the sound science and out goes the respected scientist.


    "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 6:38 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 8:56 AM hooah212002 has responded

        
    Prev1234
    5
    6789Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017