Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2017 10:40 PM
383 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,414 Year: 19,020/21,208 Month: 1,779/3,111 Week: 574/707 Day: 38/112 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Why is uniformitarianim still taught?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 31 of 89 (87708)
02-20-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tamara
02-20-2004 10:15 AM


Re: what is kind?
Tamara writes:


holmes writes:

How about using (if you agree with me anyway), gradualism for slow processes, catastrophism for fast processes, and uni for the idea that either speed process of yesteryear were the same kind of processes we see today.

Ok, holmes, getting back to you on this one.
Here is my puzzle. Were the processes of yesteryear the same kind and same speed or intensity as we see today? We agree that they were not necessarily the same speed or intensity, right? Were they the same kind? Now by kind, do you mean natural, as in opposition to supernatural? Because on the face of it, just talking natural, it seems to me that for example, assuming that since the process of continental drift is extant today, it was also extant way back when, is incorrect. So what is meant by "kind"? Or let me give a fringe example: some astrobiologists have postulated the possibility of life being seeded from space, perhaps by design (meaning alien design). Now that would be a possibly unique event or process, not extant today. Maybe there are better examples.

I'll answer this; there is a chance you may hear it better from me.

The processes of yesterday are (as holmes suggests) the same kind as those of today; but the speed and intensity varies in different times and places. Why bother to bring up "speed" and "intensity"?

Hutton tended to think of constant rates of change; but that extreme form of uniformitarianism is really only of historical interest.

By kind, I would mean (and I am sure holmes does as well) nothing about a natural verses supernatural distinction. It would be perfectly possible to bring up a different "kind" of natural process in past; except of course that there is no evidential basis for it. There are a few instances in which we say that we don't know how a certain geological feature arose; but we still look for causes in terms of processes we know. The natural world is sufficiently subtle and complex that known processes can give rise to wholly unexpected results.

We do not just "assume" that processes we see now operated in the same way in the past. That is a common distortion made by creationists, and is swiftly cured by any level of exposure to earth sciences. The processes which occur leave identifiable traces, which allow us to actually measure and study processes of the past, and tell the ways in which they may be similar or distinct.

Continental drift, for example, was not inferred by watching it in the present and assuming it works in the past. Just the reverse, in fact. It was inferred from traces in the past, and only much later actually measured in the present. The varying rates and directions of motions of land masses can be inferred from studies of the earth. To say they are just "assumed" to operate in the past is a gross misunderstanding of how geology works.

This was, arguably, a new kind of process, although still completely natural. Once it was discovered, we still find in this case also that it works now as it did in the past. If you read up on the Wilson cycle, you will find more on modern plate techtonics, involving long cycles operating over many thousands or millions of years. You could think of various stages in that cycle as being a different "kind" of process in the past; but in fact it is all part of a cycle which we see continuing now.

You bring up the example of panspermia. The difficulty is that the available evidence indicates very deep levels of relationship between all life, to such a point that panspermia would have to date back so far as to be worthless for helping to illuminate any evolutionary trends.

As a model for biogenesis, panspermia is a long shot, wholly lacking in evidence and for which no credible mechanisms exist that make any sense. It is possible that some very simple organic molecules from space might have a role to play in the origins of life; that is an interesting speculation which cannot be ruled out but which does not really solve any of the major theoretical problems for biogenesis.

I am not a geologist. But on the face of it, from the vantage point of an Earthling, I see an earth being affected by all sorts of processes, some possibly unique, others common, some predictable, some unpredictable, some slow, some fast, with intensities changing. Do you see it differently?

I think you would do well to try learning a bit of geology before speculating. There are plenty of readable descriptions available.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 10:15 AM Tamara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 12:07 PM Sylas has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 2587 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 32 of 89 (87709)
02-20-2004 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Sylas
02-19-2004 11:16 PM


Great post among many on this thread!
Sylas, great post. Many others have explained the same thing in more or less the same terms, but I guess the antagonists on this thread are not happy with the answer so they keep fishing around for one they feel comfortable with. Sorry, but individual comfort level with evidence/fact is of no consequence in science. The evidences/facts must speak objectively and not be tied to any subjective opinions. (How scientific findings are applied to civic situations can be argued over subjectively, though.)

Anyway, I teach uniformitarianism in the same unit with fossils, principle of superposition and geologic time. Our Earth Science text--Glencoe 1997--explains uniformitarianism as the processes occurring today also occurred in the past. The text I used for my Intro to Earth Science Education college course--Tarbuck, I think--also explained uniformitarianism in the same way. He also said that this does not mean that catastrophes cannot occur. They do. After talking with the other two earth science teachers at my school, I found that they teach uniformitarianism the same way--present events also happenned in the past and the present is the key to the past. As a group, we also make sure our students know that catastrophes have happenned and continue to happen, but that does not dismiss the fact that gravity has always been gravity and erosion has always occurred through the actions of gravity, water, wind, and energy, and mountains being formed today--Kilahuea and the Himalayas, for example--have always been formed in certain ways, etc.

So what is the big deal?

ps...if you haven't already, sign the petition on the ohio thread in this forum. Good science education needs to stay that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Sylas, posted 02-19-2004 11:16 PM Sylas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 11:37 AM hitchy has responded
 Message 35 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 11:57 AM hitchy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 33 of 89 (87713)
02-20-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by hitchy
02-20-2004 11:15 AM


Question about Public School Geology Text Books
One of the points that Sylas and I have been making is that the term uniformitarian is not a common term in modern geology. Geologists wouldn't call themselves uniformitarian. They wouldn't apply the term uniformitarian to their analytical principles. It isn't that modern geology isn't uniformitarian, it's just that the term is somewhat archaic and carries some historical baggage, rendering it no longer properly descriptive. I'm surprised to hear that the term is being taught (in high school?) as if it were part of the modern geological lexicon.

In your earth science text, is uniformitarianism used in describing the modern perspective, or is it only mentioned in the parts covering the work of Hutton and Lyell?

-Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by hitchy, posted 02-20-2004 11:15 AM hitchy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by hitchy, posted 02-20-2004 3:37 PM Percy has responded

    
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 89 (87714)
02-20-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
02-20-2004 9:51 AM


Re: Double dog sheesh!
And maybe you are just a lousy teacher! (Is this sort of thing a constructive path to take?!)

Percy, you seem to have joined the ranks of those here who think insult or condescencion is an argument. Too bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 9:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 12:29 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 35 of 89 (87718)
02-20-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by hitchy
02-20-2004 11:15 AM


Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve, Steve
hitchy writes:


ps...if you haven't already, sign the petition on the ohio thread in this forum. Good science education needs to stay that way.

I'm going to let this one slide. To see my reason for not signing, check out Message 24.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by hitchy, posted 02-20-2004 11:15 AM hitchy has not yet responded

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 89 (87720)
02-20-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sylas
02-20-2004 11:10 AM


Re: what is kind?
To sum up. I am wondering if the following agrees more or less with folks here.

Uniformitarianism is something of a misnomer (in terms of implying uniform, unvarying processes) and should not be taught as part of modern geology. It is of interest mainly in the history of geology. Many geologists would be happier with some other term.

The evaluation of earth's processes proceeds necessarily from what we know today about current and past processes, which are based on uniform laws. This does not mean that these processes themselves can be assumed a priori to be uniform or unvarying, or that the processes in evidence today can be assume to have functioned the same way long ago. Also, unique events may have shaped our planet in the past, but the simplest assumption (an already known process) ought to be tried first (Occam's Razor). No doubt, there are also processes we do not yet know about that have also shaped the planet.

How am I doing?

Btw, this is what Wikipedia says about the modified uni:
"In recent decades, the theory of uniformitarianism has been modified to reflect the discovery of certain catastrophic events in the earth's past. This modification, which could be phrased as "the geologic forces are almost always functioning slowly and the same through time", is called actualism."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 11:10 AM Sylas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 12:47 PM Tamara has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 1:18 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 37 of 89 (87722)
02-20-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tamara
02-20-2004 11:46 AM


Re: Double dog sheesh!
Tamara writes:

And maybe you are just a lousy teacher! (Is this sort of thing a constructive path to take?!)

Percy, you seem to have joined the ranks of those here who think insult or condescencion is an argument. Too bad.

If you have something to say in defense of your views then I suggest you say it. Otherwise, can I assume we're done with uniformitarianism?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 11:46 AM Tamara has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2502 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 89 (87725)
02-20-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Sylas
02-19-2004 11:16 PM


Re: You're right, uniformitarianism should not be taught!
what's weird??????

SJ Gould"s whole truth and nothing but that, as far as I can see in and know, HINDGES, on Darwin's denial in like time, of "progressive development" Hyatt maintained in the same building Gould did his work in, that Dyson laughed out loud about not knowing how what beyond popularization it was that Gould did while he was working. I see something else in Hyatt's plate of German snails than dark places but reverting to any only throw back also may not be "weird" for me neeither "or" neither. There is an interesting paper by a New Zeland man named CLIMO who "psychoanalzed" the same snail statistcs that Gould rests his pe case on with 10 dimensions. It was published in 1989 (NZ J OF ZOO???). NOW EVEN THE LANDSCAPE of the NZ terranes or sea between NZ and AUS for any "bermuda triangle" would not even be "wierd" if I attempted to progress the general argument under the issue in panbiogeography of "landscape ecology". Climo is the one writer of panbiogeography I have really no idea what he is saying outside of alpha taxonomy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Sylas, posted 02-19-2004 11:16 PM Sylas has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3288 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 89 (87726)
02-20-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tamara
02-20-2004 10:15 AM


Lee Harvey Oswald... ehr, sorry, heheheh... This is to say... SYLAS, did a good job answering your questions. Speed and Intensity can surely be different at different times, and this relates directly to the "speed" and "intensity" of the forces involved.

But let me address a couple of your more exotic notions...

quote:
do you mean natural, as in opposition to supernatural?

I mean natural as in forces and phenomena that can affect the planet. I have no idea what a supernatural force is. Outside of myths and fairytales I have not seen any supernatural force, nor have I met anyone that has seen a supernatural force.

If you are asking could God not have turned the earth from a flat map to a globe, when people started sailing and he didn't want them to fall of the sides... yeah maybe. But then Gandalf upon returning from Middle Earth with the Elves may have assembled the English Isles to remind him of his favorite part of the Shire.

This is why the PRESENT is the key to the past. Sure there may have been different forces/phenomena which happened in the past, but until we can make heads or tails of them in the present, or see similar forces at work in the present, then they just can't be applied as people might wish.

Here's two really good examples...

1) Continental Drift/ Plate Tectonics: This was a debatable theory within geology even in the previous century. No one had any solid evidence for mechanisms by which these HUMONGOUS things could move around.

I actually had a geology prof who had been opposed to continental drift in his younger days. He and his friends would raz visiting profs by wearing shirts with images of the continents tacked down and the phrase "stop continental drift" printed on them.

But then the images of the sea floors started coming in and he became the idiot. The evidence was now quite conclusive in the PRESENT that there were physical forces capable of moving continents around. So what once was posited, but not wholly acceptable, became clear.

2) Continental Flop: Currently no one believes that an entire plate or portions of plate could be flipped over so that what once faced the mantle now faces upward. But someone looking at a geologic formation (perhaps an inversion of layers from those formations around it) may come to this idea. How could this be?

If he appealed to supernatural forces what exactly would he be appealing to? There is nothing that he could start his description with, except some religious or literature text. If he appealed to natural forces (those we have experienced) people could at least get a grasp of what he was trying to say... ways to measure and detect.

For example he could predict a "super plume" could burst upward so fast and hard and with such an effect on liquids beneath the mantle that a plate actually pops up and flips over like a coin being tossed. People may laugh this off, but if there is evidence (like say inverted layering) it would stick around and could be possible, even if never proved.

Then one day if a super plume actually occured, at the site of a plate tossed like a penny geology would have a new natural mechanism to work with.

Then again, each formation would still have to have those indicative traits for flopping in order for a geologist to assign that as a possible cause. It doesn't just make every formation open to flopping.

And that is why "supernatural" is useless. What sign do we have to look for in a geologic formation that indicates "supernatural forces did it", except we don't know yet how to explain it?

Unique events are possible, supernatural ones are as yet unpostulatable.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 10:15 AM Tamara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 1:31 PM Silent H has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 40 of 89 (87728)
02-20-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tamara
02-20-2004 12:07 PM


Fine-tuning Your Understanding
Hi, Tamara,

You're getting much closer.

Tamara writes:

Many geologists would be happier with some other term.

Well, not exactly. This implies that geologists are still using the term. They're not. The "uniform" part of uniformitarianism carries with it an implication, to most people upon first hearing it, of a constancy of process rates over time, and so the term is disfavored now because this is not the current definition.

Geologists today, to the extent they put a label on it, probably consider themselves naturalists. They believe the planet is shaped by natural forces today, and that those same natural forces acted to shape the planet in the past. They assume when they examine a structure or stratum that it will contain evidence of natural processes.

This does not mean that these processes themselves can be assumed...to have functioned the same way long ago.

This would be incorrect. Other things being equal, processes today are expected to have functioned the same way long ago. Quiet seas today leave fine-grained sediment, and we expect that to have been true in the past. For cases where conditions in the past were radically different than today, for instance, before there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere and so we have no modern real-world examples of oxygen-free ecologies and geologies in action, we still expect the physical laws governing the behavior of matter today to have governed the behavior of matter long ago.

I've never used Wikipedia myself as a reference source, but judging by the definition you just quoted I would avoid it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 12:07 PM Tamara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 1:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3288 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 89 (87731)
02-20-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tamara
02-20-2004 12:07 PM


quote:
I am wondering if the following agrees more or less with folks here.

No. You still seem to be shaky on what similar processes, and the present is the key to the past, means. Please reread Sylas' post as well as the one I just did (you may not have gotten to yet) #39.

quote:
Uniformitarianism is something of a misnomer (in terms of implying uniform, unvarying processes) and should not be taught as part of modern geology. It is of interest mainly in the history of geology. Many geologists would be happier with some other term.

It has changed from how it was first postulated, just as most theories have, including evolution. Thus uniformitarianism is not a misnomer, it is simply easy to confuse yourself on if you equivocate between its early history and its current meaning. I am still uncertain why this is happening (thought perhaps I have some sympathy as I always forget how diabetes works, no matter how many times I am told).

It is true that in geology, it's mainly treated in its historical sense, but then that is because it has evolved to where it is now. I think Percy hit it on the head when saying that no one would call themselves a uniformitarian. But that is more a practical than an ideological stand. If PRESSED on the point I am a uniformitarian, I just think the term is a bit archaic. I would be a scientist that adheres to uniformitarian principles, or as they are refered to now: naturalism.

I will disagree with Percy that many geologists would prefer not to teach it, or that it is not taught in geology. Even in college I was taught about it. Yes it was mainly with regard to how its history as a science, but there was no idea that it ended and remained part of the past. The idea of Uni as I was taught, is that it evolved into the more general form we use today. But we don't have to keep bringing it up when talking about geology.

I mean really, every time we see a formation we have to say "present, key to the past"? Once you learn it, it just kind of stays with you and you don't have to name it.

Kind of like methodological naturalism isn't mentioned in every science class, except maybe as a part of science history and philosophy. That doesn't mean its not there as a foundation for method, just that we don't have to keep discussing it.

quote:
This does not mean that these processes themselves can be assumed a priori to be uniform or unvarying, or that the processes in evidence today can be assume to have functioned the same way long ago.

Yes on the first half of your sentence, no on the second. Why would they not have functioned the same long ago? You cannot assume they are uniform and unvarying as the forces in play are able to change over time. Just because forces may change does NOT mean that the processes have changed, only the rates of those processes.

quote:
Also, unique events may have shaped our planet in the past, but the simplest assumption (an already known process) ought to be tried first (Occam's Razor). No doubt, there are also processes we do not yet know about that have also shaped the planet.

Kind of right. Unique events may have shaped the planet, but no "assumptions" regarding mechanisms must be tried first. Scientists look at pieces of evidence presented by a formation.

If it is the same as that seen in other formations whose causes have been identified, then it can be assumed that the formation was formed by similar causes.

If the evidence is not the same as that seen in other formations, they will start to put together possible explanations using the forces and materials likely to have been present at the time.

There may be processes we have not discovered yet. There may even be forces and materials we have not seen yet. But these undiscovered "possibilities" are not brought to bear in an investigation, until known processes, forces, and materials have been exhausted.

Your last statement sounds terribly like an attempt to make it look like science cannot exclude "supernatural forces" as explanations, by admitting it has not uncovered every process. This is a bit too strong a statement, or inference (if that is not what you meant to say, but someone took from it).

And finally, the wikipedia is incorrect.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 12:07 PM Tamara has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3288 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 89 (87734)
02-20-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
02-20-2004 12:47 PM


quote:
This implies that geologists are still using the term. They're not. The "uniform" part of uniformitarianism carries with it an implication, to most people upon first hearing it, of a constancy of process rates over time, and so the term is disfavored now because this is not the current definition.

I disagree. I was taught Uni in high school and college level geology. I was never confused as I hadn't gone in with any expectation of what it meant. Uniform could mean the rates, or the state of the universe (where laws do not change).

Instructors taught how geology began with the early version of Uni, which changed over time (became more generalized). It still stands as the foundation of the practice of geology, but its not necessary to go on about it.

quote:
Geologists today, to the extent they put a label on it, probably consider themselves naturalists.

This I totally agree with, and why I think Uni as a term has been lessed used, even by geologists. The general concept of Uni in its modern form has become part of naturalism which took useful aspects from other fields.

Rather than saying I'm a geologist which is founded on Uniformitarianism, it is much easier and less confusing to say I am a scientist which is founded on naturalism. If someone wants to get specific, then I'm a geologist...


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 12:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 43 of 89 (87736)
02-20-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
02-20-2004 12:43 PM


continental drift
continental drift

To spin off on another bit of misunderstanding (stop me if we need to finish with uniformitarianism):

If you want to be nit picky the idea of continental drift was, in fact, wrong. A huge difficulty with the idea of any mechanism was the problem of continents plowing through the sea floors. And, now, we see that they don't "drift". The whole surface of the earth moves and the continents are just carried along.

I think this is important to understand. Wegner's idea was, at some high enough level, 'right' but not 'right' enough to become a compelling theory of geology. It had to be modified significantly first. As he was talking about it the detractors were correct. It isn't possible. (That is as I think he was talking about it, I've never seen anything original by Wegner)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 12:43 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 1:59 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 46 by hitchy, posted 02-20-2004 2:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3288 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 89 (87741)
02-20-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
02-20-2004 1:31 PM


quote:
And, now, we see that they don't "drift". The whole surface of the earth moves and the continents are just carried along.

While you are right that there is a difference between the first mechanism (plowing), and the understood mechanism (being moved), that still sounds like "drift" to me. Kind of like driftwood moves from place to place from the action of water beneath it.

But if continental drift should be done away with, since people might get confused as the mechanisms beneath them have changed, I wonder what we should call it...

The surface of the earth moves and the continents are simply taking a free ride?

How about "continental grift".

[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-20-2004]


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 1:31 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 02-20-2004 2:07 PM Silent H has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 45 of 89 (87743)
02-20-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
02-20-2004 1:59 PM


There's always plate tectonics
--Percy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 1:59 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2004 3:50 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017