Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unexpected Dates.
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 1 of 33 (16759)
09-06-2002 9:56 AM


Actual Subject: Dishonost motivations (Sorry about this, I got a bit carried away, and lost my original subject)
Perhaps I should start with what I believe first. As a Christain, I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries. You may not agree with this view, and I respect that. I do believe that Genesis 1 could be interpreted simbolicaly, but there is certain things from it which is clear: Death is the result of sin, and the earth were made perfect ("..and God said it is good")
Since evolution require death, I must doubt it. This might be unscientific, but let's be real: If there were a period where death did not exist, the evidence could be as clear as can be, scientists will not make such a conclusion. It is just to "out there" to be believed.
And I think I have reason to distrust evolusionists. They can sometimes act just as unscientific as religious people. Example:
The incident when a human scull and a apes jaw were found, it became "the missing link" for 50 years, before its true identity were discovered. And let's not forget the ape-man that was dreamed up from a single tooth of a pig. And I have heard of several cases where scientists just assumed the age of artifacts without proper analysis. Artifacts is sometimes forced into their preconcieved ideas.
Then there is the argument of smooth evolution. For over a 100 years they told us it is a fact that evolution occured smoothly, and, even though the fossil evidence do not currently show it, as the collection of fossiles grow, it will eventually appear that way. Faith is to be certain of that which you can't proof. If this wasn't faith, I don't what is. Now they made another unscientific assumption: Species remain the same for millions of years, and then suddenly change appearance overnight. As unbelievable as this might sound, I suppose it's beter than believing that these creatures were just created, each acording to its type. I'd like to wittness this "transition" in real live.
And the cherry on the cake: We are told that everything in the universe is degrading, and everything is moving to a state of chaos. Tell me then, why has live gone the opposite why the last few billion years?
Bottom line is this. I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created. Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution. But the evolusionists can blame only themselves when religious people accuse them of distorting the truth and calling evolution "the religion of the atheist". There ARE scientists who want to use evolusion to disprove the existance of God. Then they make statements that harms the credibility of evolution. And they do not follow the scientific process. When creationist scientists give scientific arguments against evolution, they are simply dismissed. In true scientific tradition, the evolutionists should seek to discuss this with evidence with the creationists, and admit when they are right, even if it turns their theory upside down. But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved.
People should know. This can never be a purely scientific issue. Unfortunatly, people on both sides of the debate has their own agendas, and, it's best to treat them, like with politicans, with a certain amount of distrust.
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 09-06-2002 10:33 AM compmage has replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 3 of 33 (16772)
09-06-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
09-06-2002 10:33 AM


I rest my case. Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!
It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph. ("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries."). You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence. If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time. This is a matter concerning mainly religious people, because there has to be a God for creationism to exist. If we are so very backward, why do you concern yourself with what we believe? Or do you feel threatened by the possibility that you might be wrong and that there is a God? In that case, He won't go away by me stop believing in Him. By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 09-06-2002 10:33 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 12:03 PM compmage has replied
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 09-06-2002 7:08 PM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 5 of 33 (16800)
09-06-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
09-06-2002 12:03 PM


My aren't we getting personal. Very much the scientific tradition to attack the person making a statement we don't like. Let me reply to your letter.
I rest my case.
***************************
I did not know you had one
[Unscientific, personal insult I don't easily feel insulted. sorry.]
______________________________________________________________________
Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!
****************************************************************
You just have to read your example to see the same hackneyed bogus anti-science arguments that creationists use over and over without success.
[Wrong quotation. To get the examples, please refer to my FIRST letter. And anyone who know something about the evolution of the evolution theory, would know of these unfurnunate mistakes. But if you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want me to add sources to them, just tell me. I'll do the effort to locate them specially just for you. PS. The problem is not so much the mistakes they made, but the amount of self confidence with which it was made. I'm sure other scientists in other fields will gladly admit if there are things they do not jet understand, and when they do, they wouldn't make the kind of assumptions like the guy that worked magic with 'n pigs tooth. Besides. You can at least credit me for being a little bit more open minded than the average creationist (See quotation above)]
____________________________________________________________________
It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.
*************************************************
How is that clear. Or if someone disagrees with you it is due to their deficiencies?
[Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't want to make the same giant leap assumptions evolusionists make, but if a person says :"then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad", I think I can savely say he's not religious. Don't you agree?]
_____________________________________________________________________
("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph.
****************************************************
Read his post...he was pointing out the fallacy of your logic
[Read his ENTIRE sentence please:"Finally, if you want to trot out examples of fraud in science and claim that all science is bad". I challange you to quote me where I refered to "all science"? If you read my letter in the "Big Bang" section, you will see the fallacy of HIS argument. Once again. It is not the mistakes I dislike, I is the self confidence with which it is made that I dislike. You evolusionists like to tell us THIS is a "FACT" and THAT is a "FACT", 20 years down the line, a new discovery is made, which disproves these "FACTS" (Not by creationists, by evolisionists.) If you could just admit that these "FACTS" are actually theories, and that the fossil record, even if completed, only give a glimse into the past, I'll be happy.]
____________________________________________________________________
("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries.").
*****************************************************
The bible is obsolete because the middle ages are over
[Oh, is that so? There is a book called "I Dared to call him Father." It is about a real live story about a disabled Pakistani girl (Muslim) that seeked help from God. She went on the Hajj (pelgrimage to Mekka), believing God will cure her. God did not awnser. She got a bible, and started reading. She read about Jesus as God, and how God loved us. Jesus appeared to her in a vision and she was cured. She converted to Christianity. Now, in Islam, that is one of the worst sins posible. Her entire family and her friends turned against her. Se was threatend with death, and even locked up in prison. Tell hr the Bible is obsolete.
When Jesus came into Jerusalem, the croud cheered. When the religious leaders told Him to silence them, He said if they would be silent, the rocks will cheer. Meaning you cannot stop the Gods Good News. As the west rejects Him, Christianity is growing fast in Africa and in Asia. They said Christianity would die in the 20th century, It had the largest growth in that century than ever before. Rest assured. The Bible is not obsolute. not now, not in the next century, not in the next millenium.]
____________________________________________________________________
You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence.
*********************************************
You here looking to convert? Great.
[Wouldn't you just LOOOVVEE it if I become an atheist? Seems like you're doing the converting around here]
____________________________________________________________________
If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time.
********************************************************
Few people without a good education and a strong biological background can understand evolution either so I guess this is a waste of your time to. Oh yeah, and there are religious people who believe in evolution.
_____________________________________________________________________
By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.
***************************************************************
Which (true) scientific discoveries would those be? Which are the false ones? How did you make your determinations?
[Those are the ones that can actually be proven: relitivity, quatum phyics, etc. Not ones which include speculation, presented as facts. Those which you can actually apply to every day live (Ok, ok, so I like astronomy too. What of it?)]
____________________________________________________________________
I would not take the bet that you know more about science than Joe knows about religion.
[Now why would an enlightend scientific orientated atheist concern himself with ancient religions? I grew up as a Christain, and I also took the time to find out what other religions say. (I Don't think it's right for Christians to say things like "The Muslims pray to Muhammed", and them expect to convert.) Everyday I live in dependance from God. I too have a "thorn in my flesh", and I thank God that I know him, otherwise my life would've been a mess today. Trust me. My knowledge of science is larger than his knowledge of religion. Someone from the outside just cannot understand it quite like the person inside. You seek to critisize it, but I draw strenght from it.]
This site is suppose to be a place were creationists and evolusionists DEBATE the matter like civilized people, not insult each other like barbarians! Of all religions, atheists seems perticularly sensitive about theirs. (Just as I can't proof to you there is a God, you cannot prove there isn't. Your believe is just as void of scientific evidence as mine
Cheers,
Hanno
PS. Please lighten up. You sound worse than polititions in parlement. I do not have a vendetta agaist you, I just don't aggree with you, gee wiss!!!
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 12:03 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 09-06-2002 7:23 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 8 by frank, posted 09-06-2002 7:25 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:38 AM compmage has replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 11 of 33 (16974)
09-09-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mammuthus
09-08-2002 8:38 AM


Well, I did say if one is wrong, one has to admit it, so here goes. Seems like I went to war, leaving my amunition(sources) at home. I must admit that was pretty stupid. . I'm not going to reply to everyting, but here is what I feel I need to clearify.
1. With "Unscientific insult", I mean it's not a proper scientific response to through insults. And, if it appears as if I have done so too, I appoligise. It was not my intension.
2. It's pretty silly to propose Jesus never existed. The Apostiles based their teachings on witness accounts, and when you read the first chapters of the book of Acts, you'll notice there were quite a view wtnesses. If Jesus did not exist, it is doubtful that Christianity would've existed. It's like saying Mohammed never existed. I don't believe his teachings, but I'm not going to pretend he was a mirage.
3. You say the bible is totally unsupported? So too the believe that there is no God. The proof of the existance of God cannot be proofed or disproofed by the natural sciences. Nuture is Gods creation, not God Himself. Similarly, you will not find the proof that a car was manufactured by, say, BMW by examining how it works. You'll just have to trust the label.
4. I DO know my history, by the way. Evolution and communism was invented in the 19th century. And if you want to be technical, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. Communism require that the government to disolve. I placed Evolution after communism, because it was in this order that these ideoligies became intolerant toward ideas chalenging it, while enjoying dominance. (I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools, but evolution is taught to everyone, whether you like it or not. (At least, that is the perseption.)
5. Crackheads see elvis, but Elvis doesn't miraculously make crippled
people walk.
6. "I have no vendetta against you either". I'm glad. Now we both know this is not a game of personal insults. However it would be more appearent if you do not use phrases like "Only if by open minded you mean your brain fell out of your right ear." Oh, and ofcause this place is for disagreement. I like to disagree. The reason I was wondering why an atheist would be interisted in this debate, is that you know before hand, you cannot be convinced. Likewise, I wouldn't expect someone that believe Genesis 1 is absolute to bother with this debate. (Unless you, like me, enjoy a good argument.)
I am more open minded than what you credit me: I do not have any specific believes on the details of creation, I just have a frame work. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, because it fits into this framework. It might not be your idea of an open mind, but it's more than you'll get from fundementalist creationists.
Now for my arguments.
Acording to the dean of microbiology of the University of Pretoria, Genes has a number of cromosones.(I'm not sure if that is the correct term, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.) It is (according to him) scientifically impossible for the offspring to have a different number of chromosones than it's parent. It is thus not possible for one animal to have evolved from another animal with a diffirent number of chromosones.
The dreamed up man from a pigs tooth was Hesperopithecus. I'm sure, being an expert in the field, you know about this incident. [by the way, can you please tell me how they can tell it's a pigs tooth, if for 5 years, it was mistaken as human?] It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident. Think about it. If cosmologists found a theory to reconcile Relitivity with quantum phisics (Which is the workings of gravity) It would be thoroughly investicated before being accepted as fact. Very much unlike this incident.
Then I printed an article of Hansruedi Stutz. (http://www.answersingenesis.org) Now, before you lol, just remember his personal believes is not evidence against him if he does a scientific experiment. He went to Magenwil (Swizerland) and collected sandstone with fossilized mussels from the Upper Tertiary era. Along with this, he also took some samples of coal right next to it. Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it, and found it to be 36000 years old. Now I do not necesarily agree with his conclusions, but the point is this: I'm not sure if this is true, but sometimes you make age assumptions based on where an item was found. If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract.
And tell me. The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet, or was it simply ignored?
Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634)
Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601)
You would note, not all these are creationist sources. As I said, I'm not going one way or the other on the dating techniques. Not yet, anyway. Can you explain these contradictions? Please don't tell me this is Creationist hog wash. If it is, please proof it then with more rational explanations than "this is the work of a crank". Somehow, if you say that, I get the feeling you've got something to hide.
Please exscuse my spelling. If there is typing mistakes, it is because I'm typing in my lunch hour.
regards
Hanno.
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 9:55 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM compmage has replied
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-10-2002 1:01 PM compmage has replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 14 of 33 (17052)
09-10-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
09-09-2002 9:58 PM


Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. However, I would like to see evolusionist scientists and creationist scientists go head to head on these matters, instead of just accussing each other of misinterpretation on these matters.
But I would love to know if this IS misinterpretation. As I said in the beginning. Evolusionist should admit error if something is disproved by creationists, BUT ALSO, creationists should not use evidence that has all ready been disproved.
I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.
PS. I am aware of Carbon datings limits. But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?
Cheers
Hanno
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 11:10 AM compmage has replied
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 09-10-2002 11:48 AM compmage has replied
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 09-10-2002 9:54 PM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 16 of 33 (17086)
09-10-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by frank
09-10-2002 11:10 AM


Sorry about that. I got it horribly wrong. It's not aliens, it's extra terrestrial. The theory goes that life originated on some asteriod, it crashed it earth, and evolved further. If you search for aliens, you've probably got to sites of new age alien sites. sorry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 11:10 AM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 1:05 PM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 18 of 33 (17088)
09-10-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Joe Meert
09-10-2002 11:48 AM


Well, they are not actually so disconected historically. Marx was waiting for something like Darwins publication. He needed a non-religious theory how life came into being, so he can justify his theory on religion. I'm not sure about it, but they might actually have met. So, historically, if not anything else, there is a connection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 09-10-2002 11:48 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 12:23 PM compmage has replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 22 of 33 (17103)
09-10-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Minnemooseus
09-10-2002 1:01 PM


Thank you for you cool and rational reply. Some evolusionists can become quite touchy, I noticed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-10-2002 1:01 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 23 of 33 (17104)
09-10-2002 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mammuthus
09-10-2002 12:23 PM


Really, old chap. It's elementary really. I did not want to put it quite so harsh, but since you insist that i clarify this, I will. Simmilar to Communist in Russia, Evolution today is forced down our troughts, whether we like it or not, just as Communist was forced down on the poor Russians. To you it might be a fact, but, for heaven sake, don't force it down on people that doesn't want to hear it. Chemistry and Biology is very closely related, yet it is two different subjects on school, and is hardly ever mixed in documentaries. Why can't Biology and Evolusion not be seperated into two different subjects as well? That way, anyone interested in nature do not have to listen to evolution if he doesn't want to. And foalla, everyone is happy. Unlike other sciences, evolution does not contrubute very much to the modernisation of society, so why is it important anyway? Astronomy, on the other hand, will one day become very useful when we start colonizing other planets.
There is to date still no rational explination as to HOW evolution occurs in the first place. Don't tell me it's mutations. No random mutation can be positive. I'm a programmer. If someone who doesn't know a thing about computer languages come and randomly change something in my code, the chance is 99.999999999999999999999% that it will case an error. Now the human gene is a billion times more complex than my computer programs. What is more, unlike my program, each gene control many parts of the body. So in the very rare occurance that a gene has a positive change, it will also have quite a few negative effects. The overall efect will be negative. Also it still has to be proven how a mutation in one animal, can be transfered to the entire specie. Usually, they disappear or fade in following generations. There probably is a nice sounding theory, but has it been proven on large animals?
The process of exactly HOW evolution occures is pure speculation, and there is no experiment performed to date that successfully demonstrated this process. There is also no explanation why evolution would simply stop in some species, such as the shark and jelly fish.
Why is there not a single shred of evidence of a transitional form, both today or in the fossil records? I know that the newest theory says that evolution happens in leaps, but surely not within a single generation? Then with all the millions of changes there was in animals, surely some of those must have been preserved? Surely, at the very least there sould be one?
And when we take the evolutionary tree. You have skeleton thats 200 million years old and then one totally different 150 million years later, and then they are charted as relatives. What proof do you have of this? Is there still some dna left in the bones? Maybe, it evolved from something totally different, something that was never fosilized.
So there has been experiments which describe how the first molecules found in live were formed. But that is still a huge leap between organic molecules and a singe cell live form. On the transition from dead molucules, to single cell organisms, there is quite a bit on explaining to do.
Let us discuss how the creatures with two sexes evolved from something that can procreate on its own. What does a creature look like with one and a halve sex? Surely this transition must have been a long process. But then why would creatures have developed two sexes in the first place, if the original form could've procreated on its own? And why two sexes, and not more?
Lets talk about that one thing many people that believe only in the laws of science want to avoid. Your self conciousness. Surely if you would arange (dead) atoms in some magical way, they become not become self aware? People that believe in the New age movement says everything, even rocks lives. In that case, I can understand. But if atoms are dead (which I believe they are)? If you could make atoms self aware, why am I, I? Why was my "awareness" born in this body, and not in another? Yes the brain is incredibly complicated, and it's programmed with several processes, BUT If I program a computer to ACT human, it doesn't mean it IS alive. It is still just a bunch of variables, unaware of itself, moving around as it was programmed to do. If that is what was going on in my brain, I would ACT self aware, but would I BE self aware? The point I'm making is the evidence of a soul. Something that can not be the result of the organisation of matter.
Just a bunch of thoughts. Use it, don't use it...
I look forward to your reply to them.
Oh, and I just thought of something else: The larger and complicated someting is, the less likely it is that a random change would be positive. Therefore, it can be argued, since evolution is explained by rare positive changes, it could be expected that the more complicated a creature, the slower it would evolve. But, instead, if we look up the evolution table, evolusion seems to accelerate rhe close you get to now. Why is that?
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]
[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 12:23 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-10-2002 3:40 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 09-10-2002 3:40 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 26 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-10-2002 6:22 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 27 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 6:33 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 29 by joz, posted 09-11-2002 12:53 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 31 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 6:13 AM compmage has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 30 of 33 (17145)
09-11-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
09-09-2002 9:58 PM


Hi, me again
You've all been great sports. thanks. Unfortunatly, I've got a deadline for Friday, so I won't be able to respond this week. Hopefully, next week I won't be so bussy, and then I can upset you guys again.
Cheers.
Hanno

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM gene90 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