Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 5:27 PM
401 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,391 Year: 9,997/21,208 Month: 3,084/2,674 Week: 500/961 Day: 113/117 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 136 of 181 (672821)
09-11-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:09 PM


No neutrino gap.
I've already mentioned the neutrino gap in regards to our Sun. I heard about this myself years before I read LaViolette's books and wondered what it might mean.

Perhaps I can save you the trouble of worrying about this issue. The case of the missing neutrinos was solved at least 10 years ago, and the answer was anticipated maybe about 20 years ago. It turns out that there are three kinds of neutrinos produced by stellar fusion and that those detectors from 20 years ago only detected one of the three types. It has since been verified that the sun produces the expected number of neutrinos.

Bye-bye genic energy? Or at least there is one less place to find verification for the concept.

In a sense, your arguments are a "genic energy of the gaps" argument. You (and perhaps LaViolette) are looking at descriptions of old problems and filing in genic energy without looking to see if the problem has been filled in by conventional science (i.e. current science). Genic energy fits into the gap until conventional science and investigation advance to fill in the gap and push genic energy aside.

LaViolette can be forgiven if he made his predictions contemporary with the problems he identifies (at least in those cases where he is correct about the state of science when he made his prediction). But if you want to convince someone today that LaViolette was right back in 1978 or 1985, then LaViolette's predictions must be compared to current science and not to whatever scientist thought in 1978.

As an aside, your posts would be a little less confusing if you put my text inside of a [qs=NoNukes] [ /qs] set. Use a separate set of quotes for your own text from previous messsages.

TheRestOfUs writes:

Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps.

I did not ask you if you had enough knowledge to fill in the gaps. That's way too high a standard, and neither you nor I would meet that standard. Instead I ask whether you have enough understanding to have an informed opinion of whether there is or is not a gap that needs to be filled in with "genic energy".

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 135 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:09 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 137 of 181 (672822)
09-11-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
09-11-2012 12:49 PM


Rather than restate what I've said. In answer to your question please read my answer to "NoNukes" in post 135.

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 12:49 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 4:43 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 138 of 181 (672823)
09-11-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:09 PM


One more point
Jovian planets' frozen moons that do not have elipitical orbits and therefore wouldn't be subject to the tidal gravitational forces

Tidal forces do not require eliptical orbits.


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 135 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:09 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 139 of 181 (672824)
09-11-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
09-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
[q=NoNukes]
I've already mentioned the neutrino gap in regards to our Sun. I heard about this myself years before I read LaViolette's books and wondered what it might mean.

Perhaps I can save you the trouble of worrying about this issue. The case of the missing neutrinos was solved at least 10 years ago, and the answer was anticipated maybe about 20 years ago. It turns out that there are three kinds of neutrinos produced by stellar fusion and that those detectors from 20 years ago only detected one of the three types. It has since been verified that the sun produces the expected number of neutrinos.

Bye-bye genic energy? Or at least there is one less place to find verification for the concept.

In a sense, your arguments are a "genic energy of the gaps" argument. You (and perhaps LaViolette) are looking at descriptions of old problems and filing in genic energy without looking to see if the problem has been filled in by conventional science (i.e. current science). Genic energy fits into the gap until conventional science and investigation advance to fill in the gap and push genic energy aside.

LaViolette can be forgiven if he made his predictions contemporary with the problems he identifies (at least in those cases where he is correct about the state of science when he made his prediction). But if you want to convince someone today that LaViolette was right back in 1978 or 1985, then LaViolette's predictions must be compared to current science and not to whatever scientist thought in 1978.

As an aside, your posts would be a little less confusing if you put my text inside of a [q=NoNukes] [ /q] set. Use a separate set of quotes for your own text from previous messsages.

TheRestOfUs writes:

Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps.

I did not ask you if you had enough knowledge to fill in the gaps. That's way too high a standard, and neither you nor I would meet that standard. Instead I ask whether you have enough understanding to have an informed opinion of whether there is or is not a gap that needs to be filled in with "genic energy". [/q]

End of NoNuke's post.

Start of Trou's post.

If what you say is true about there being three types of neutrinos ( and this isn't just a continuation of the endless "force carrier parade") then I guess LaViolette and thereby myself are out of touch with the latest. As I mentioned I have a copy of Subquantum Kinetics last updated in 2003. I will look for more recent updates wherein he may address this data. Well it's been enjoyable anyway.

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:41 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by hooah212002, posted 09-11-2012 4:06 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 142 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 4:58 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 5:28 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 145 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 8:06 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 140 of 181 (672826)
09-11-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:59 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
Try clicking "preview" before submitting your posts. They are giving readers a headache to decipher.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 141 of 181 (672830)
09-11-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:43 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

Rather than restate what I've said. In answer to your question please read my answer to "NoNukes" in post 135.


I was trying to get at what I thought Catholic Scientist was trying to get at with his question, "How so?" I'm asking for examples more than explanations.

I can use a thermometer or a calorimeter to detect and measure heat energy. I can use a telescope or a photocell to detect and measure light energy. What instrument(s) would I use to detect "genic energy"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:43 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 142 of 181 (672834)
09-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:59 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
I am trying to contact Dr. LaViolette on his blog and get some updated answers to some of the questions here. Don't know how long that will take. But while at the Starburt Foundation site I came across a prediction that relates to the foundation of Subquantum Kinetics about spontaneous creation of particles of matter in the universe which is intregal to his entire theory and forms the basis for the"genic energy" hypothesis. Apparently his "Model G" reaction diffusion system theory has had some current verification regarding computer simulation. I present it here as something old and something new. Now I just need to find something "blue" eh?

Trou

Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems (1978 – 80): At this time when Model G was developed, no reaction-diffusion systems were known that were capable of producing autonomous self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures.

Prediction No. 12 (1978 – 80): LaViolette develops a Brusselator-like reaction-diffusion system called “Model G” as the main ether model for subquantum kinetics. Based on simulation work others had done on the Brusselator, he makes predictive extrapolations that Model G is capable of producing autonomous, self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures – dissipative solitons – that have a bell-shaped core surrounded by an asymptotically declining periodicity of precise wavelength. Also he predicts that these solitons should be able to bind to one another, spawn progeny particles in their immediate vicinity, and move when subjected to a concentration gradient. Published in: 1985 (IJGS).

Verification (2010): M. Pulver conducts computer simulations of the Model G reaction system and confirms that it does produce dissipative solitons and shows that the resulting solitons have the above predicted characteristics. Results to be published by Pulver and LaViolette (2012). Other researchers in 1998 had published computer simulations of a nonlinear system of the FitzHugh-Nagumo type, showing that it could produce dissipative solitons capable of bonding, particle replication, and scattering. However, it is not clear that this system qualifies as a reaction-diffusion system. It is usually expressed as a set of partial differential equations instead of in a kinetic equation format, which leaves open the possibility that its variables might adopt negative values in the course of producing their dissipative solitons. Thus, besides being the first soliton-producing model to be proposed in the literature, Model G may also be the only true reaction-diffusion system to demonstrate the ability to produce dissipative solitons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by zaius137, posted 09-12-2012 12:37 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 143 of 181 (672835)
09-11-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:59 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
quote:

If what you say is true about there being three types of neutrinos ( and this isn't just a continuation of the endless "force carrier parade") then I guess LaViolette and thereby myself are out of touch with the latest. As I mentioned I have a copy of Subquantum Kinetics last updated in 2003. I will look for more recent updates wherein he may address this data. Well it's been enjoyable anyway.

According to Wikipedia two types of neutrino had been discovered by 1962, the third was predicted in 1975 and proved to exist in 2000 neutrino


In 1962 Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger showed that more than one type of neutrino exists by first detecting interactions of the muon neutrino


The first detection of tau neutrino interactions was announced in summer of 2000 by the DONUT collaboration at Fermilab

Also, the neutrino problem was explained in 2001 - and the explanation had supporting evidence by 1998, although by my own memory the solution had been proposed before then.

Neutrino oscillation


...neutrino oscillation was not conclusively identified as the source of the deficit until the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory provided clear evidence of neutrino flavor change in 2001.

I would have thought that a 2003 update would have had time to deal with this issue. It would have been impossible for anyone following physics news in the mainstream media to have missed the reports from the Sudbury team (I saw them! Ghostly particle mystery 'solved'). And there was evidence of neutrino oscillations a few years before that. And the possibility that the problem was explained by neutrino oscillations goes back to the 1980s at least....

So, just looking at the points I've discussed, we've had one highly questionable "verification", one failed prediction being passed off as a success and a "solution" to a problem which had been solved more than a year before the revised text you are using was published. This is not an impressive record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2012 5:57 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3513
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 144 of 181 (672847)
09-11-2012 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Not enough.
Still can't conceive of a source other than your pal, hum?

He states what I thought was that "dust particle theory" except he's talking about something else and references it (Lerner, E."The Big Bang Never Happened". New York: Vintage, 992, p.156.).

Amusing. Lerner, of course, doesn't agree with LaViolette's physics. But Lerner's model, which is of course the dust particle hypothesis, fails miserably to explain observations . It predicts that high-red-shift radio sources would be terrifically blurred by the absorptions and re-emissions. And there are several more problems; See Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened": Lerner's model for the microwave background

He's making a case of course for an alternate explanation for the Microwave Background Radiation having some source other than the Big Bang. In his alternate theory matter and energy would be continously created in a universe which is cosmologically stationary. In that he references some similar ideas presented by others like Jeans and McCrea. (Jeans, J. Astrononmy and Cosmogony, Cambridge University Press, London, 1928, p. 352. and McCrea, W. H. "Continual creation." Mon Not. R. Astr. Soc. 128 (1964): 335-344.)

Nineteen freakin' Twenty Eight!!one!1eleventy-one! You're kidding, right? Almost 30 years before the CMB was discovered!

All the steady state theories were abandoned when the CMB was discovered. Expanding universe or non-expanding universe. Even Fred Hoyle gave it up.

So, sort of an explanation, but contradicted by the data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 1:51 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 145 of 181 (672848)
09-11-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:59 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
Hi TheRestOfUs,

I have to confess that your posts are driving me crazy trying to separate which are your words and which are other people's. For example, I'll be reading along thinking I'm reading your words, then suddenly I hit, "End of quote from so-and-so".

Figuring it might be just me I thought I might just leave it be, but now others are starting to complain, so I'm going to give you a couple more days to figure it out, but if you still can't make it possible in some way (and I don't care what way) whose words are whose then I'll temporarily suspend your posting privileges in this forum. You can go to the Practice Makes Perfect forum and practice there until you've attained at least some novice level of expertise with the dBCodes or HTML or indentation or fonts or something, anything, so that other people's words are identifiable as not yours.

Also, use the Preview button so you don't have to keep editing your posts 4 or 5 times.

This isn't rocket science. Actual children have had no trouble using discussion boards.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 181 (672850)
09-11-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:09 PM


TheRestOfUs writes:

Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps. As I've said I am fascinated by the entire subject and am very interested in it for philosophical reasons. But that's all. If that disqualifies me from being on this site all the moderator or the owner of this site has to do is ask me to leave and I'll be gone.

If you're defending a position you've accepted not on the basis of its supporting evidence but for other reasons, such as believing that scientists are just following the herd instinct, or that they've given you reason not to trust them, or that they're just circling the wagons to protect their own gravy train, and so forth, then you'll be in an exceptionally weak position here. At EvC Forum the focus is on the supporting evidence.

But there is nothing in the Forum Guidelines against defending a position one is unqualified to defend, though it is unusual for someone to acknowledge it. In any event, carry on.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:09 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by foreveryoung, posted 09-11-2012 11:51 PM Admin has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(1)
Message 147 of 181 (672852)
09-11-2012 9:21 PM


Hmm.. I guess I won't be here much longer. I'll be suspended or banned for one reason or another. Percy no need to warn me further. I'll save you the trouble. This will be my last post here.

I have enjoyed getting something off my chest that's been there for years. And I really can't blame anyone else as I did come here with a chip on my shoulder. You see I've been quiet about my thoughts about the cosmos and creation for many years and when I read LaViolette's books I admit I felt an inner joy that I had finally found a cogent explanation to refute the "dismal paradigm" that the universe just popped into existence from nowhere and was expanding at greater and greater speeds and would eventually after all the stars go out and the remains are eaten by who knows how many black holes; just tear itself to smithereens down to the atomic level. It didn't matter how far into the future this would be it was still a bleak outlook.

So I did get energized when I read of an alternative by a man full of constructive thought who hypothesized in a cogent and intelligible manner that the universe was not only alive but was growing not fading. That light and order had defeated entropy and would for untold eons to come. "God is alive, Love is afoot" so to speak. I know... well I've already confessed I believe in God so I guess you are right that maybe I do have a spiritual motivation. Maybe it blinded me a little and maybe filled me with a bit too much zeal. I apologize to whomever I offended.

But when I saw that this man whom I saw in a interview in 2009 admit that he may have put out too many new thoughts too soon and caused his own ostracism because of it. But confessed he was only motivated by a dedication to the truth and the benefit of mankind I did get a little hot under the collar.
Especially when I did some searching and found discussions by other scientists like this one by Frank Tipler Prof of Mathematics at Tulane: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf. And this from a group of 33 Scientists who've individually put out 2000 papers challenging the mainstream paradigm on Black Holes and the Big Bang since I believe 2004; and have received absolute silence from their collegues: http://www.cosmology.info/. And I found many more examples. It confirmed my worst suspicions. But I wasn't fair that I "hang" you here with that baggage.

Well I have learned a few things in these few days so that's good - for me. Once again thanks for your time.

Moderator you can take me off the members list as I won't be returning. God Bless you all.

Trou


Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Admin, posted 09-12-2012 8:47 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 148 of 181 (672861)
09-11-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Admin
09-11-2012 8:14 PM


percy writes:

If you're defending a position you've accepted not on the basis of its supporting evidence but for other reasons, such as believing that scientists are just following the herd instinct, or that they've given you reason not to trust them, or that they're just circling the wagons to protect their own gravy train, and so forth, then you'll be in an exceptionally weak position here. At EvC Forum the focus is on the supporting evidence.

PaulK writes:

Also, the neutrino problem was explained in 2001 - and the explanation had supporting evidence by 1998, although by my own memory the solution had been proposed before then.

Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here. I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim. You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues. "Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 8:14 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2012 12:23 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2012 12:50 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2012 1:42 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Admin, posted 09-12-2012 8:51 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Admin, posted 09-13-2012 9:00 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2012 9:57 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 149 of 181 (672862)
09-12-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by foreveryoung
09-11-2012 11:51 PM


I wanted to highlight the words "supporting evidence" in quotes from both PaulK and Percy but don't know how to.

Whenever you want to know how to do something, find a message that does it and hit its peek button. That will open another window that displays the raw text, including all the dBCodes.

You can do it with this message. For example, there's bold, italics, and [u]underline[/u]. You can also change the color, though you need to be careful with your choice of colors, since some color combinations do not contrast well with each other and can be unduly difficult to read -- problems dealing with certain contrasts tend to get worse with age. You can also change font size. Play around with it, using the Preview button to test your changes before actually posting the message. And, as I said, use the peek button to see what the codes look like.

The basic concept of those codes is almost exactly the same as with HTML, except these use square brackets ( ) instead of "angle brackets" ( < > ). Also, some dBCodes do not seem to play well together. In such cases, you can use HTML; that is a forum feature that I haven't seen elsewhere yet and it can be very useful indeed. Though when I use it to display a table, for some reason it seems to pad a lot of space before the table that an admin then has to come along to fix.

Here's an added treat, some same formatting code someone posted once. It's embedded between two "horizontal rules" produced by HTML HR tags:




question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no
/ \
decide why
based on decide
inadequate at this
evidence time?
=guess =wait
(B) (C)

Ah DC85, you forget,

why does a creator define your truths? Your questions do not make sense until you answer this... Please explain

That's his presupposition. see Message 132



Isn't that cool? Just use the peek button to see how it's done.

Also, for displaying a link to a particular message, go to that message and look at the gray number in parentheses immediately to the right of the Message ### of ### at the top of the message. For a topic ID, I usually pull that number out of the URL/URI.

Share and enjoy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by foreveryoung, posted 09-11-2012 11:51 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Admin, posted 09-12-2012 8:34 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(2)
Message 150 of 181 (672863)
09-12-2012 12:39 AM


I could have edited my "last post" but I've decided to avoid hiding what I intended at the time to do. That is "leave". Let's just say I thought about it and have decided not to give up on my "quest".

Don't mean I still won't be suspended or even banned soon. But I won't give up until I am.

Trou.


Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2012 3:09 AM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017