Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 12:38 PM
124 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, PaulK, XJTA (4 members, 120 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,160 Year: 13,766/21,208 Month: 3,248/3,605 Week: 34/556 Day: 34/54 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   faith based science?
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 136 of 171 (677658)
10-31-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-30-2012 10:41 PM


Re: light waves
No, the original belief in ether was based on strict necessity . . .

No, it was based on the BELIEF that waves required a medium. Obviously, the evidence shows that they don't. Evidence trumps beliefs. That is the whole point of this thread.

If your only point is that there has to be an ether BECAUSE YOU SAY SO then perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on that. If there is an ether, why doesn't it show up in experiments?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-30-2012 10:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 1:31 PM Taq has responded
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 1:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 137 of 171 (677668)
10-31-2012 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Taq
10-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: light waves
No, all your evidence only shows there is a contradiction in terms. I repeat slowly for the exceptionally dull and unreceptive: wave is what something does. An act needs an actor. You can believe whatever you want and persist in your absurdities. It's up to you. Irrelevant otherwise. Love without a lover is religion. If you say God is pure Love, light is pure wave and stream of zero-dimensional, massless beads with momentum and so on, that is your faith and religion is three doors down the hall. You are welcome there. No questions asked and you can run all the experiments to confirm your faith. In physics it's different. No contradictions allowed.
If you say God is Love, you show the object that loves and physics is happy to study and explain the mechanics of that object and its love. Simple. Same goes for light. Understand?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 12:54 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 1:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 3:45 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 138 of 171 (677671)
10-31-2012 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-31-2012 1:31 PM


Re: light waves
Mad writes:

wave is what something does.


The word you are looking for is 'verb'.

But, unfortunately for you, 'wave' is also a noun.
Or in your parlance: "wave is what we call it."

Mad writes:

An act needs an actor.


...and those are both nouns.

With your failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of English, it is no surprise that your posts read like the inane scribblings of a brain-damaged marmot.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 1:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 9:42 PM Panda has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9550
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 139 of 171 (677672)
10-31-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Taq
10-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: light waves
No, it was based on the BELIEF that waves required a medium. Obviously, the evidence shows that they don't.

I don't agree with this characterization. People thought light required a medium because light had wave properties, and all of the waves they were familiar with required a medium. Like other waves, light has a frequency, a wave length, propagation speed, reflects, refracts, etc.

I think the erroneous conclusion that light needs some kind of medium is a failed extrapolation from what was known to be true about other waves. I'm not sure I'd call that faith. It was just wrong.


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.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 12:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 10:47 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2747
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 140 of 171 (677684)
10-31-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by eclectic1993
10-20-2012 11:47 PM


I'm curious in learning from thinking evolutionists who have looked at the strengths and weaknesses of their knowledge and beliefs.

What 'holes in your understanding of origins (bangers and toe) have you had to accept by faith? Just because you use faith to fill in the gaps doesn't mean it is bad science or not true. For now, given our clearest empirical understanding of origins, what do you accept on faith?

After quite some time of trying to figure out what kind of bizaare British fare "bangers and toe" could be (bangers are a type of sausage often served up at Scottish games), I finally realized you were refering to Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution. Well duh! Apparently it's easier to confuse an eclectic mind.

But "faith" is the wrong word, especially with the meaning that I feel you're applying here. Such faith is the acceptance of an idea or belief not only in the absence of any evidence but also in the absence of any way to gather such evidence or in any other way to test or verify that idea or belief. Furthermore, such faith is held in spite of any contradictory evidence.

Now, certainly there are those who do approach science like many mainstream religionists approach religion, by unquestioningly accepting what they hear without thinking about it and without even understanding any of it. Examples that come to mind include my father circa 1968 when the first electronic calculators had hit the market; he "knew" exactly how they worked: "They have chips." (half a decade later in electronics class, I learned how integrated circuits are constructed and how their component regions work). Or our shop's QC NCO whose understanding of electronics was that it's all "FM" ("fucking magic") and PFM ("pure FM"); he only knew how to work with electronics, but with no understanding of how it worked. At that same time, I was reading some classic Asimov, including Foundation in which the Foundation on Terminus started exporting technology to its barbaric neighbors as a religion operated by technician priests who only knew that to make a particular device work you had to say this particular prayer and press that particular button, just like that QC NCO. But then those are not the type of people you're talking about, since you did specify "thinking evolutionists".

Another meaning of "faith" involves trust, as in "acting in good faith". So it's not that we mindlessly accept what scientists tell us as a form of religious faith, but rather that we trust them to know what they're talking about. After all, no single individual can know every piece of the totality of human knowledge nor can do all the primary research necessary to discover all that knowledge. Rather, we need to work as a team, with parts of the task and the learning of the skills and knowledge needed for those parts of the task delegated to others. And in working as a team, we need to trust each other to do our own parts of the task with due diligence and honesty. An analogy would be any large human endeavor, like the operation of a naval taskforce. The taskforce commander directs the operation of the taskforce, but he can't do everything so he delegates to each ship's CO the part of the operation that that ship needs to perform. Similarly, each ship's CO cannot do everything and so must delegate down to his XO and to the department heads, who delegate down to the CPOs, who delegate down to the PO1s, and so on. Everybody depends on everybody else to do their job and to do it right; everybody needs to be able to trust his shipmates. The radioman (now changed from RM to IT) must trust the ET to keep the radio equipment working and the ET must trust the EMs and ENs to provide the power for his equipment and everybody must trust the LS (formerly SK) to provide them with the parts they need, plus everybody must trust the CSes to provide them with meals free of contagion, etc. Like a sailor having to trust his shipmates, we "thinking evolutionists" have to trust scientists.

But that trust is not blind, nor do we trust scientists or anybody further than we can throw them. Same as in the Navy (or any other branch of the services). Units and commands are constantly subjected to inspections to ensure that they are indeed doing their job right. All maintenance actions are documented and even those are subjected to inspection in order to prevent gun-decking (AKA "pencil whipping", the act of falsifying records to claim that an action had been performed when in fact it had not). Similarly, everything a scientist does and publishes is subject to close scrutiny and testing and verification. A lot of research goes into attempting to verify and to duplicate other scientists' published results. For example, when cold fusion was "discovered", physicists everywhere waited anxiously to get their hands on that publication; the instant it was made available, it was widely FAXed to other physicists. They then tried to duplicate the results and could not. Cold fusion was not detected and it returned to being an unsupported idea, even though that didn't keep it out of Hollywood (eg, The Saint).

The reason for all this testing and verification is quite simple: because every scientists' own research depends on the research of other scientists, they need to be as certain as possible that that other research is sound. That can only be achieved by testing and verifying that other research. Despite creationist claims of a scientific conspiracy, this fundamental need to test and verify each other's research makes such a conspiracy virtually impossible. Furthermore, one of the surest ways to achieve fame in science is to be able to show that an established idea is wrong, which makes it even less likely for a scientific conspiracy to survive for long.

Several years ago in another forum, discussion led to a comparison between science and "creation science", which led to me presenting those ideas in a table. Since I can't translate that table to dbCodes, I'll try to present it as a list:

Comparison of Science / Scientists and Creation Science / Creationists:

      What they are trying to do:
    • 1a. The scientist is either trying to make a new discovery or to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous discovery, hypothesis, or theory.
    • 1b. A creationist is normally not trying to make a new discovery, nor to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous claim. As rustyb puts so succinctly in his signature, "I already know the Truth." There's little use in trying to discover something new about the "Truth" that you already know a priori, nor is there any use in testing it (which would probably be sacrilegious anyway), nor to try to add to its Completeness. Rather, what a creationist is normally trying to do is to come up with convincing claims and arguments against anything that appears to contradict "the Truth" that they already know.

      How they measure success:
    • 2a. The success of the scientist's efforts depends directly on the quality of his research and on the validity of the studies that he bases his research on. Therefore, a scientist is motivated to verify his sources and to maintain high standards of scholarship.
    • 2b. It doesn't matter whether that creationist had done a proper job of researching the claim, or had even researched it at all (though it does help to make it more convincing if there's something in the bibliography, even if that source had never actually been looked at -- remember that NASA document?). It doesn't matter if the claim or argument is valid, just that it sounds convincing; after all, the creationist already "knows" that it must be true.

      Scholarship
    • 3a. Since scientists depend so much on the validity and quality of the work of other scientists, the scientific community is motivated to police itself against shoddy or falacious research.
    • 3b. When you research some other creationist's claim, you're not depending on that claim being true or valid; you're only depending on that claim sounding convincing.

      How they handle dishonesty:
    • 4a. Thus, a scientist who is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community.
    • 4b. And if a creationist claim is discovered to be false or a creationist is discovered to practice questionable methods, none of that matters, just so long as they still sound convincing. A creationist is far more likely to face censure for theological lapses than for shoddy or questionable scholarship.

      Of course, if a creationist claim starts drawing too much negative publicity, then it is no longer convincing and must be dropped, as quietly as possible, until everybody has forgotten about it, whereupon it can be resurrected and received as a "new" claim.


      How they handle mistakes:
    • 5a. Mistakes and hoaxes will still happen in science, but the near-constant scrutiny and testing will uncover them.
    • 5b. Mistakes and hoaxes will also happen in creation science, but in this case there is no mechanism in place to uncover them; indeed, there is much resistence against uncovering creationist mistakes and hoaxes.

Now of course, there's another question to consider. I've only been discussing what we don't know but scientists do. What about what scientists also don't know? The actual gaps in our collective knowledge.

Here again, it's a question of trust, only this time it's trust in the system. If there is a natural cause and/or explanation, then the scientific method is the best way to find it. It is not unreasonable to believe that we should be able to eventually close that gap in our knowledge.

Now, a common Christian response to a gap in our knowledge is to consider that gap to be proof for God. This is known as "The God of the Gaps" and crops up often in creationist arguments as well as in fundamentalist proselytizing patter. It is also the basis for "intelligent design" ("We cannot explain this, so that means Goddidit.") This false theology breaks down when those gaps in our knowledge start to close, thus diminishing their "proof" for God. Thus, the "God of the Gaps" is a frightened impotent god huddling in the dark terrified of Knowledge, instead of what should be the image of the Christian God as Sovereign over Nature.

On this subject, you should find the writings of Dr. Allan H. Harvey (http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings.htm), physicist and practicing Christian, to be of interest, especially his essay, Science and Christian Apologetics.

Now, creationists and especially IDists criticize science for excluding the supernatural, but that is very necessary for the scientific method to work. Since there is no way for us to observe, measure, perceive, or in any way even ascertain whether the supernatural even exists at all, there is no way to use supernaturalistic premises in our hypotheses. This is why "goddidit" doesn't work. I even opened a topic here asking just exactly how science using the supernatural is supposed to work and nobody was able to answer that question. Supernaturalistic explanations in science actually answer nothing and put a stop to any further investigation.

Please read my signature for more thoughts on this, especially the quotes of Wakefield and of Holmes. In another article, Wakefield pointed out quite correctly that when a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve that mystery, but when a creationists sees that mystery as proof of God, then he wants it to remain a mystery. That is yet another reason why "goddidit" does not belong in science.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by eclectic1993, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM eclectic1993 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 141 of 171 (677686)
10-31-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-31-2012 1:31 PM


Re: light waves
No, all your evidence only shows there is a contradiction in terms.

No, there isn't. Light is observed to act as a wave. Every experiment fails to detect an ether. Both are based on FACTS. Your beliefs do not trump these facts.

I repeat slowly for the exceptionally dull and unreceptive: wave is what something does. An act needs an actor.

In this case, the photon is the actor.

You can believe whatever you want and persist in your absurdities.

I accept the observations made in these experiments. What I don't accept are your empty assertions that are based on faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 1:31 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 10:06 PM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 142 of 171 (677694)
10-31-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Panda
10-31-2012 1:47 PM


Re: light waves
Actor and act are both nouns standing for objects? Not for the purposes of physics, Pandy. For the purposes of poetry and religion only both love and a lover are nouns. The same with runner and running. In pop physics they are used indiscriminately as concepts reified into objects with the help of mathemagic and that creates a lot of confusion. For the purposes of real physics running is a verb and a concept. It is what runners do. No runners, no running is possible. No exceptions for waves and suchlike.

All the pop phyz religion is based on is a bunch of such exceptions and that is why they have the fluctuating nothing of the Big Bunk acting to create the Universe and the rest of the nonsense you are fed daily by the popphyz stars. You are happy to swallow their crap and to fake understanding, they are glad to fake communicating an explanation in order to get their upkeep in exchange. So every one is happy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 1:47 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 11:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 143 of 171 (677695)
10-31-2012 9:57 PM


Vernacular is the biggest hindrance to physics.
  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 144 of 171 (677696)
10-31-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Taq
10-31-2012 3:45 PM


Re: light waves
No, Tacky. Every experiment indicates waves thereby indicating there is a medium that allows the waving. No ether is postulated in the hypothesis. Your span of attention is too short. It is double helix ropes connecting all the atoms that is conceptualised, not ether as ether is contradictory too.

You are talking through your hat again. Photons are but mathematical entities. Remember, in the theory they are only counted and do not do any travelling anyway. It's waves again that propagate. That needs a medium necessarily. That is clear since there is no handless shake coming from you lot in my post. Only your usual spewing of second hand nonsense.
That is why the ropes are conceptualised rationally explaining a lot of phenomena as a result . If you can come up with a better explanation including a better fitting medium, please do. Until that time the Gaede's ropes trump anything else.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 3:45 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 10:57 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 145 of 171 (677699)
10-31-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NoNukes
10-31-2012 1:48 PM


Re: light waves
Nuke, you just assert that the extrapolation has failed. You expect everybody to take your claim that an exception is somehow possible at face value. Wave is a moving shape. Shapes and configurations without any exceptions need what is shaped and configured. Granted, if you repeat your absurd claim many times in a chorus you can persuade most apes that such an exception is somehow possible in the case of light. But not everybody and not all the time. There always will be somebody who'll see that your emperor is naked and call your bluff, Nuke.
You may depend on that, my learned friend.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 1:48 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1126 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 146 of 171 (677700)
10-31-2012 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-31-2012 9:42 PM


Re: light waves
Mad writes:

For the purposes of poetry and religion only both love and a lover are nouns.


Wrong.
'Poetry' and 'religion' are also nouns.
And so are many other words related to poetry and religion.
Only a crazy person would claim otherwise.

Mad writes:

All the pop phyz religion is based on is a bunch of such exceptions and that is why they have the fluctuating nothing of the Big Bunk acting to create the Universe and the rest of the nonsense you are fed daily by the popphyz stars. You are happy to swallow their crap and to fake understanding, they are glad to fake communicating an explanation in order to get their upkeep in exchange. So every one is happy.


And we are back to your inane scribblings.

Your grasp of English is embarrassing.
If only you had a friend who could look at your posts and tell you what a horrible confused mess they are.
But alas, from your own admission, you don't have any.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-31-2012 9:42 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-01-2012 12:25 AM Panda has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 147 of 171 (677702)
11-01-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
10-31-2012 12:24 PM


You've got it, Vatican. Bill's explanation is internally consistent and yours second hand one is not. So yours fails already before any testing can even begin. What is there to test if you have no clue what you are talking about? You just flip and flop and dance around the issues. That what inconsistent means.
That is how you ended up with the Universe popping out of nothing and the rest of mathematical fudges like dark matter, energy and so on accelerating into the same nothing.
You've got nothing, Vatican. Your case is closed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2012 9:58 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 148 of 171 (677703)
11-01-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Panda
10-31-2012 11:52 PM


Re: light waves
Blah, blah, blah, Panda's Thumby. Of course, all those are nouns as grammatical category. Love though is an abstraction devoid of physical properties and only a lover is a physical object that can move and love. Love does not belong in physics. Lovers can wave, love cannot do that other than in poetry. Love is an abstraction denoting the various actions of lovers. Simple.
Can you grasp the difference or your skull is too thick for that?
My grasp of English may be poor or may be not. Your grasp of anything at all is non-existent. It's all borrowed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 11:52 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Panda, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

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


(3)
Message 149 of 171 (677710)
11-01-2012 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by NoNukes
10-30-2012 7:48 PM


Re: E&M 101
nonukes writes:

We also know that no medium is required to support either a magnetic field or an electric field.

A magnetic field and electric field exert force on particles. There is a distance between the source of the field and the particles. How do the magnetic and electrical sources exert a force an object that they are not in contact with? There has to be a medium in between them in order for one to exert a force on the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2012 7:48 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 11-01-2012 4:40 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 151 by Son Goku, posted 11-01-2012 5:10 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 8:38 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1381 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 150 of 171 (677715)
11-01-2012 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 3:15 AM


Re: E&M 101
Easy logistics, Forever. The quacks just build mathemagical bridges all over the "fields" and good communication is in place.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 3:15 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017