Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,411 Year: 3,668/9,624 Month: 539/974 Week: 152/276 Day: 26/23 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Windows 3 described in the Bible
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 90 (115999)
06-17-2004 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
06-17-2004 12:26 AM


jesus is not his name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 06-17-2004 12:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 90 (116383)
06-18-2004 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Melchior
06-16-2004 10:43 AM


Windows for WorkGroups
It take 16 floppy discs to load the software for a 386 VGA computer with a double-speed CD-Rom Drive and a Sound Card to run the three mentioned CD-Roms.
query -- Could you please explain your reasoning for the number 16 ?
(Extracted from the PPHC Study Group web site with permission)
That's 24 discs all together. Thus in this specific computer package we have the "computer" itself, 16 "floppy discs", and 8 "compact discs", and they are;
# _ Floppy Disks
4 _ MS-DOS 6.21, 1993
1 _ Intel Processor Utilities, 1992
1 _ Graphics Disc
1 _ Sound Blaster, 1994
1 _ Video Blaster SE, 1993
8 _ MS_WINDOWS 3.11 for WorkGroups, 1993
--
16
For the 8 cd-roms, please read the "386 MS-Dos Computer" link on the "Pegg's Conclusion" page from the SEMINARS menu item in the Member Area of the web site http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Melchior, posted 06-16-2004 10:43 AM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 1:17 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 90 (116387)
06-18-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
06-16-2004 7:29 AM


You still haven't told me exactly how "biblion" connotates roundness, removed from English.
I say that although the Greeks wrote their own versions of religious texts in their own language and understanding, John in referring to the "book" in Revelations that is being described by the Greek word 'biblion', is actually referring to the "sealed book" mentioned by Daniel, and because of the "in the Hebrew tongue" hint cited twice in the New Testament, and because we know that the Greeks employed 'secret methods' of writing, we have to focus on the original Hebrew meanings and contexts of this "book" - the "end time book" mentioned in the Bible.
If you want me to say that the surface text meaning of the general Greek word "book" doesn't have 'roundness', then no it doesn't in the Greek context of the word 'biblion'. But John WAS in a Roman jail, and would have probably been aware of Latin words such as 'rota' (wheel).
I have stated my case several times. It is you who wishes to remove the English and Latin associations.
If you chose not to understand Mr Pegg's methods, that is fine.
We must agree to disagree on this one, and move on - or we will be repeating ourselves and missing the opportunity to examine the many other important discoveries made by Mr Pegg.
Why the conclusion of a 386? What evidence shows this?
Er..please re-read the 13 paragraphs in my previous post that ends with :
"In summary, here are some of the pieces of evidence that led Mr Pegg to the PC 386 conclusion
Individual pieces of a computer are described in Hebrew texts, and are of a yellowish colour. 8 bit technology. Windows 3 operating system. 1995 cd-rom needs a PC 386 as a minimum. Mormon historical records mention the number of floppy disks required to set up MS-Dos 6 and Windows 3 on a PC 386. A Mormon historical picture shows a witness holding a clear plastic cd-rom case.
Thesemany attributes of a mid 1990s PC 386 are described and documented in ancient texts";
Why did they use a PC 386 ? Time travel can't be so easy and cheap that they'd waste it on as frivolous a trip as getting a computer that sucks. Why would they bother?
I am not in a position to guess or speculate at the reasons why time travellers may have utilized a particular piece of technology. I personally do not know the answer to this.
I hope questions like this may eventually be answered when a more extensive examination of Mr Pegg's evidence and methods are conducted. At the moment, I can only examine the evidence so far presented - and either agree or disagree with his conclusions.
What evidence shows that it was that particular cdrom? Is it anything in the texts.
Many ancient texts describe certain similar imagery and sequences of images, both in the plain text and also when using the Hebrew and Greek origins. Genesis 1:1-6 is a good example.
Available from the new introduction of the PPHC-SG web site http://www.pphcstudygroup.org.au is a downloadable pdf file that contains a summary of this imagery from many of the world's Creation Myths.
Then in the Member Area, the "Ancients CD-Rom Overview" and "Examine Specific Claims" sections of the STUDY OPTIONS menu item shows you the visual evidence - when ancient descriptions are viewed as you read the sequence of images described in ancient texts (from the .pdf pages).
Exodus 35:11-13 "The tabernacle, his tent, and his covering, his hooks, and his boards, his bars, his pillars, and his bases, The ark, and the staves thereof, [with] the mercy seat, and the vail of the covering, The table, and his staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread".
query -- Where, pray tell, did your translation come from?
Using the Hebrew etymology and original primary root meanings as cited in Strong's Concordance and not the given English words found in modern Bibles.
(Extracted from the PPHC-SG web site with permission):
H-word 4908 "tabernacle" means 'a residence' (as in the Temple).
168 "tent" means 'a covering' as clearly conspicuous from a distance. ie 'a conspicuous covering'.
4372 "covering" comes from word 3680 which means 'to plump' as in to fill in the hollow.
7165 "taches" means 'a belaying pin' but comes from word 7164 which means 'to protrude'.
The Old English word for "belaying" lecgan comes from two words 'be-lay'. "Pin" means 'to hold firmly in one position'. So using the Old English and Hebrew etymologies, "taches" refers to 'something that is belayed and is held firmly in one position on a protrusion'.
7175 "boards" is from an unused root that means 'to split off'.
1280 "bars" comes from word 1272 which means 'to flee suddenly'.
5982 "pillars" means 'a standing column'.
This gives; The conspicuous covering of the residence. Something belayed is to fill in the hollow and be held firmly in position on the protrusion from the tabernacle that splits off then flees suddenly.
"The protrusion from the tabernacle" refers to the CD-Rom Drive Tray that protrudes from a computer and then "flees suddenly" once a compact disk is placed "firmly in position in the hollow".
134 "sockets" means 'a basis of a building' but comes from the same as word 113 which means 'controller', and is given the meanings of 'foundation' and 'sockets'. This derives 'the sockets at the foundation of the controller building'.
727 "ark" means 'a box'.
905 "staves" means 'a separation'.
3727 "Mercy Seat" means 'a lid'.
6532 "vail" means 'the sacred screen'.
4539 "covering" comes from word 5526 which means 'to entwine' or to join together.
7979 "table" means 'a spread out table'.
905 "staves' means a staff or rod.
3627 "vessels" means 'an apparatus, a utensil'.
This gives; From the sockets at the foundation of the controller box; a separation - the Mercy Seat lid and the sacred screen; joined together - a spread out table and a staff utensil.
The "staff utensil" (a computer's mouse) and the "spread out table" (the keyboard) are joined to the "controller box" (CPU box) via "sockets" at its base, as is the "sacred screen" (monitor).
Note: Mr Pegg comments that he was amazed that so many of the English words in the Bible did NOT reflect the original Hebrew root and etymological meanings and contexts.
Exodus 38:7-8 "he made the altar hollow with boards. And he made the laver of brassand the foot of it of brass, of the looking glasses" decoded reveals that; the Mercy Seat altar is a yellowish round excavated platform for a glistening polished plate; and that the looking-glass mirror has a brass coloured stand..
query -- about the translation ??
Exodus 38:7-8 tells us attributes of the Mercy Seat and Looking Glass.
H-word 3871 "boards" means 'a glistening, polished or plate'.
3595 "laver" means 'something round as excavated'; a platform.
"Brass" is a yellowish colour.
This means that the Mercy Seat altar is a yellowish excavated round platform for a glistening polished plate. ie. the protruding CD-Rom Tray
H-word 3653 "foot" means 'a stand'.
4759 "looking glasses" means 'a vision' and also 'a mirror'.
This means the looking-glass mirror has a brass coloured stand. ie. the monitor's stand is a yellowish shade, being the colour of the plastic generally used for computers in the early 1990s.
The decoding of 2 Kings 25:17 reveals a data transfer rate of 8 bit.
query -- This one I don't get. -- Windows 3.1, btw, is 16 bit. not 8
I checked with a local computer technician who confirmed to me that early 1990s 386/486 ran 8 bit, Pentiums ran 16 bit. - I can't remember what he told me next ran 32 then 64 bit - sorry.
You will find a copy of Mr Pegg's explanation for this decoding in his Research Booklet #7, The Matter as Spoken", page 938, which is available by downloading it from the PPHC-SG web site in "Download PDF Booklets" from the LINKS menu item in the Member Area.
Here briefly is his explanation of the decoding of 2Kings 25:17. ie. "The first standing column to rise 8 to 10. A means of access to the main part of the system is set upon the base. The level of attainment is set at 3 units (of measurement)".
This means "2 (the base) to the power (the unit of measurement) of 3" and gives 2^3 (or 2x 2x 2) which derives the number 8. But in base eight there is no digit "8".
The number 8 is represented by the digit combination 10. Thus the unit column raises to the next one for the number 8 in base 8 to the digits 10.
Exactly what the encoded message states.
Using etymology, the literal decoding of Numbers 7:88 reads as "blahblahblah" Mine reads as "And all the oxen for the sacrifice of the peace offerings [were] twenty and four bullocks, the rams sixty, the he goats sixty, the lambs of the first year sixty. This [was] the dedication of the altar ".
query -- What do you think they're saying? and, uhh, I checked the etymology.
You will find Mr Pegg's full translation of Numbers 7:88 on page 944 of his research Booklet #7, The Matter as Spoken".
He ends by saying, quote- "While not grammatically fluent the "feel" from the etymology has just described 16 thin floppy discs (unrecognizable thing) with a metal locking protector (sliding metal protector) as a specific 'force' from a larger group of 24 that are inserted (offered up)."-end quote
Out of all the words from this verse, I am having trouble following three of his 'decodings' (unless you allow his use of the English dictionary meanings in reference to derived words), but have confirmed his 'decoding' of the word "sixty" as 16 by referring to the special notes in the Concordance.
This is how I see it from those notes: H-word 8346 "sixty" is a multiple of H-word 8337 meaning 'six' which itself can be in connection with the principal word to which it is attached (in this case 'six') and rendered in English as one word, given as "sixteen" which means that two Hebrew words are translated into one. ie. 6 + 10 (with 10 being the number of fingers from 8337).
Mr Pegg's explanation follows the literal meanings from the concordance:
quote- " Word 8346 "sixty" means 'a multiple of word 8337'. Word 8337 means 'six (as an overplus beyond the fingers of the hand)' and gives '16'. This is derived from the number '6' plus the number of fingers on both hands '10'; 6 +10 =16." - end quote.
I agree with Mr Pegg and am happy that the Old English scribes may not have used the correct meaning and given it as 60, but I am putting this verse on my list of things to double check, as I am only 85 percent happy with his overall 'decoding' of this verse. I usually expect at least 95 percent (allowing for my own disagreements and opinions).
it's reasonably well known that john in revelation was talking about nero csar, and the burning of rome. if you want some proof, take nero's name in hebrew: nrwn qsr. since hebrew letters work like roman numerals and have significance, and n=50, r=200, w=6, q=100, and s=60, nero = 666. apparently, it also works in aramaic.
What an inconsistency !!
In previous posts people have been dismissing Mr Pegg using Hebrew and Greek etymology and the associated Latin meanings and encoding methods of those ancient times, yet now you are suggesting that the Greek writer John, was talking about the Roman Nero Caesar, and as evidence you use the Hebrew translation of Nero's name (as Mr Pegg does plus the Latin association), use the Hebrew letters as numbers (where did that come from?), and manipulate those decimal based numbers (that were not in existence in John's time), and come up with a solution that apparently matches a religious symbolic number mentioned in the Bible.
I would have the same reaction to this method as you are having to Mr Pegg's methods, except for the reality of it all: you have just described one of the many other methods that Mr Pegg employs to find his 'hidden messages'.
So you now have to decide whether his methods, which you are using yourself when it suits you, are valid, or whether what you wrote is just a load of babble as many people claim Mr Pegg's work to be.
If you truly believe in the number - Hebrew - letter - Greek associations that you have mentioned, then I am sure you will find some of the other discoveries of Mr Pegg's fascinating when you come across them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2004 7:29 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2004 7:04 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-27-2004 5:32 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 90 (116459)
06-18-2004 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Eddy Pengelly
06-18-2004 9:34 AM


Re: Windows for WorkGroups
Graphics disc? Why would you need graphics to setup Windows?
You do realise that most of those discs aren't actually needed, right? Why would you install DOS if you are just planning to use Windows? Just a bootdisc would do just as well.
This sounds suspiciously like just adding discs until you reach the specific number you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-18-2004 9:34 AM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 2:15 PM Melchior has replied
 Message 22 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-18-2004 6:50 PM Melchior has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 90 (116490)
06-18-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Melchior
06-18-2004 1:17 PM


Re: Windows for WorkGroups
Is your memory that short, Melchior? One would install DOS even if one only intended to use Windows for Workgroups because the latter is an operating environment and thus depends on the former, an operating system. True, a bootdisk would work, but only for someone with the patience of Job. WFW relied heavily on DOS for its basic functions. Using a bootdisk would slow WFW operations to a crawl.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 1:17 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 3:13 PM berberry has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 90 (116523)
06-18-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by berberry
06-18-2004 2:15 PM


Re: Windows for WorkGroups
Patience of Job? Most of what's on the DOS discs are just small programs that aren't actually needed. Most people install(ed) them even if they had no idea of what they did, and never ever used 95% of them.
I am going to admit you'd probably (especially if you picked up an old computer without having used one before) include DOS, but that list still seems to be picked in order to match a number, and not based on what is actually needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 2:15 PM berberry has not replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 90 (116561)
06-18-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Melchior
06-18-2004 1:17 PM


Yes, a Dos boot disk could work, but it is not the standard set up that comes from a shop when you buy a computer. And it is not just setting up Windows NT.
This was a list of disks that came with a PC 386 computer system when purchased in the early 1990s in Australia.
A computer requires a graphics card, which in turn requires graphics software to be installed.
If you want sound, and video capabilities, it’s the same deal - software has to be installed for the hardware. (Also the Intel processor for the Maths processor.)
For your argument to be valid, it seems that the video, sound, and graphics software may not be needed - but that is incorrect, if the system is to function properly - and run the Ancients cd-rom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 1:17 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 8:38 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 90 (116579)
06-18-2004 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Eddy Pengelly
06-18-2004 6:50 PM


Ah, so you looked up a real example. Well, I'll admit to that probably being the best course of action.
I am puzzled by the graphics drivers, though. There is no need for graphics drivers on those computers, otherwise you wouldn't be able to even start the computer for the first time (you wouldn't be able to see what you were doing). I don't think it was until SVGA was introduced that you needed additional files, and that was during the late 486 'era'.
However, if you did look up a completely random computer after getting the number 16 to double-check it, I'd say it was a coincidence you arrived at the same number, seeing as computers came with anything from zero to 20+ discs (preinstalled OS, various drivers, various tools, various demo programs, various games, anti-virus discs, recovery discs... Could amount to basically any number).
Also, I need clarification on something. Which OS was used? You started with 3 in the topic, then 3.1 in the early posts, and now you've moved to 3.11. They all take different amounts of discs, you know (4 vs 6 vs 8).
This message has been edited by Melchior, 06-18-2004 07:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-18-2004 6:50 PM Eddy Pengelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 9:16 PM Melchior has replied
 Message 30 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-20-2004 1:59 AM Melchior has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 90 (116582)
06-18-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Melchior
06-18-2004 8:38 PM


Melchior writes:
quote:
I don't think it was until SVGA was introduced that you needed additional files, and that was during the late 486 'era'.
No, it was earlier than that. SVGA may have been introduced after the initial introduction of the 486, but the 386 was still in use and quite viable throughout the Win 3.x lifespan. Even when 3.0 was first released, SVGA drivers were available and had to be installed to use anything above 640x480 @ 16 colors. I'm pretty sure SVGA predates even Win 3.0 because I seem to remember it being available on one of the early OS/2 releases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 8:38 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 9:52 PM berberry has replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 90 (116584)
06-18-2004 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by berberry
06-18-2004 9:16 PM


Sorry, my bad. I checked up on the requirements and such on the program. It does indeed require SVGA. It was released in -95, which is sort of late for 386's (You could just as well buy a Pentium at that time). Since it uses 256 colours at 640x480, you do need graphical drivers if you are using Windows 3.1/3.11. I wasn't actually aware that 386's were fitted with SVGA-compatible graphics cards in the first place.
Still, why buy a 386 desktop computer plus a monitor and a portable generator to supply them with power if you can just as well grab a faster Pentium laptop with everything pre-installed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 9:16 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 10:36 PM Melchior has replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 90 (116588)
06-18-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly
06-11-2004 9:23 AM


By the way...
The program is in English, right?
Why would you want to show a specificprogram to a group of people who don't understand any of it? If he actually took a detour to -95 he must have had a purpose with it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eddy Pengelly, posted 06-11-2004 9:23 AM Eddy Pengelly has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 90 (116592)
06-18-2004 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Melchior
06-18-2004 9:52 PM


Melchior writes:
quote:
Sorry, my bad. I checked up on the requirements and such on the program. It does indeed require SVGA. It was released in -95, which is sort of late for 386's (You could just as well buy a Pentium at that time).
Yes, I've been thinking about it since that last post, and I remember that SVGA does indeed predate Win 3.0. I now recall distinctly that an early OS/2 release had a graphical environment that heavily influenced Win 3.0, and SVGA drivers were available for it. Also, there were a number of SVGA games available before Win 3.0.
I'm not sure what you mean by "It was released in -95", since that was the year Win 95 came out. 3.0 came about five years or so earlier. The 386 dates back to about 1986.
You must remember also that there were two types of 386: the original, fully 32-bit processor and a later, scaled down 16-bit version that was known as a 386SX. When the SX was introduced, the original processor was redubbed the 386DX. One might think of the SX as being the Celeron of its day, although it didn't perform nearly as well relative to the DX.
All of this is simply to say that, equipped with a generous amount of RAM and a good SVGA card, a 386DX running at at least 33Mhz was a perfectly viable machine for the entire lifespan of the Win 3.x line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 9:52 PM Melchior has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 11:30 PM berberry has replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 90 (116600)
06-18-2004 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by berberry
06-18-2004 10:36 PM


The program "Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean" was published in 1995.
Hence, the time traveler would visit 1995 or slightly later and have access to the computer technology for sale at that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 10:36 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by berberry, posted 06-18-2004 11:39 PM Melchior has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 90 (116602)
06-18-2004 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Melchior
06-18-2004 11:30 PM


Ah, then yes a Pentium would have been available. Some small improvement had been made to the original Pentium by that time, something called MMX if I'm not mistaken. I think it would have been available at 120Mhz (or was it 133, I forget) by then and probably affordable for most people at 90Mhz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 11:30 PM Melchior has not replied

  
Eddy Pengelly
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 90 (116812)
06-20-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Melchior
06-18-2004 8:38 PM


Also, I need clarification on something. Which OS was used? You started with 3 in the topic, then 3.1 in the early posts, and now you've moved to 3.11. They all take different amounts of discs, you know (4 vs 6 vs 8).
In the early 1990s I personally was first using a 386 PC just using DOS and a screen menu programme, then I came across Mr Pegg's work in 1998.
I had my PC 486 upgraded to run cd-roms and to do so I added on a "Sound Blaster Discovery CD 16 kit (Model MK4021 by Creative Labs, 1994, 3.5 floppy release, Aust barcode 5465117991), and installed Windows for Workgroups NT (which used 8 floppies).
The kit was available off-the-shelf and available throughout Australia. I believe it may be the same one that Mr Pegg utilized (going from the details he provides).
I always thought Windows3.x were all the same, but Windows NT has 8 disks - as Mr Pegg cites.
Reading from the box (which I still have because it is solid for storage and has a nice handle) the Discovery Kit came with:
Sound Blaster 16 stereo sound card, double speed cd-rom drive, speakers, and the following software.
Aldus Photostyler Special Edition and the New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia - oh, and Lemmings.
The minimum requirements for this were: an IBM-PC 386SX, Windows 3.1, with 4MB Ram and a 3.5 floppy drive. Also included were the following CD-Roms : Sound Blaster CD graphics, 1994, Sound Blaster CD, 1994, Screen Singer 006, 1994, Grolier Encyclopedia, 1993, and MS-VIDEO, 1993.
OS - I have seen two versions of the Windows 3 File Manager - dated 1993 and 1995. They both seem the same to me.
if you did look up a completely random computercoincidence that you get = 16
It is not a random computer - it was the specific cd-rom upgrade available in Australia in the mid 1990s that ran on a 386Sx (Dx if you include the Intel Maths Co-processor) that you could buy off the shelf.
This specific package running on a 386DX using Windows NT and Dos 6.21 with a SVGA for the Video playback had sixteen 3.5 floppy disks.
Something else that has been on my mind: Why is there the exact same computer system described in the related biblical stories (Old Testament and Mormon) that Ronald Pegg from Australia used in the mid 1990s ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Melchior, posted 06-18-2004 8:38 PM Melchior has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024