Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)
LAKDAR
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 198 (281967)
01-27-2006 11:57 AM


IT IS A WRONG.
THIS THREAD IS A LOCKING. THE SOLDIER OF GOD IS A BANNED. BOWL OVER YOU FUCKING HEAD.
Offensive off topic remarks have been hidden. Use the peek button to view. Please Do Not Respond to this message.
AdminPD Magic Wand
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 02-04-2006 08:50 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by bibbo, posted 02-09-2006 8:44 PM LAKDAR has not replied

  
skb
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 198 (283767)
02-03-2006 10:27 PM


Post-Babel World
I am wondering about what happenned immediately after everyone started speaking different languages. Did they all scatter to their own areas based solely on language? This seems highly unlikely at best. All of the people who spoke "Native American" (let's be general as it's hard to define what the actual languages were) ran off, then crossed an ocean or took a land bridge through Alaska and every single one of them settled in the Americas?
There was an argument earlier that all languages should be spoken everywhere today. This argument is completely valid. Wouldn't some groups stay in Babel regardless of their new language and "tough it out?" Why would everyone who speaks a certain language ALL stick together? Wouldn't they splinter, thus creating pockets of the same language in multiple areas throughout the world?
Ask yourself what would happen if the same thing happenned today in a given area. I doubt the residents of that area would scatter. Instead, they would likely try to find common ground and it's likely a new "common" language would be invented. Give humanity some credit for goodness sake. We don't always run away from crisis. Humans actually tend to embrace each other at such times. Of course, God could make us do anything. If that's the case, what's the point of living? God's calling the shots, so we're all subject to his whims.
This story suffers from the same plight as most of the other bible stories - that everybody in the world today traces their ancestry to a small area in the Middle East circa 2000 B.C. This is simply logistically impossible. A similar argument can be made for the post-flood world, where all of the animals scattered to parts of the globe in an orderly manner, never procreating along the way.
Just a note since this is my first post. I am not an atheist, I just don't believe in a personified God, who by the accounts of the Bible is far from a loving, caring, all-knowing being. Instead, the biblical God is vengeful, mistake-prone, and short-tempered. That's not exactly what I'm looking for in a God.
Thanks for reading.
-S

  
bibbo
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 198 (285339)
02-09-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by LAKDAR
01-27-2006 11:57 AM


Re: IT IS A WRONG.
With all the disturbing posts I've read on here since the last time I stopped by, I think it would be safe to say I continue off from where skb made his post (pleased to meet you, by-the-way )
"I am wondering about what happened immediately after everyone started speaking different languages."
Very good question... A puzzling one in fact. One thing I like to do, whether it is studying the pre-flood or the post-flood world is to use outside sources, other than the Bible, like "myths" from other cultures to see the underlying message behind them, perhaps drawing some sort of coherency to the Biblical passage (considering that I'm taking the Bible as fact, since we must have at least some sort of foundation to build upon). Something I found earlier today was a Native American Choctaw legend...
The Tower of Babel - A Choctaw Legend
...which goes as follows:
"Many generations ago Aba, the good spirit above, created many men, all Choctaw, who spoke the language of the Choctaw, and understood one another.
These came from the bosom of the earth, being formed of yellow clay, and no men had ever lived before them. One day all came together and, looking upward, wondered what the clouds and the blue expanse above might be. They continued to wonder and talk among themselves and at last determined to endeavor to reach the sky.
So they brought many rocks and began building a mound that was to have touched the heavens. That night, however, the wind blew strong from above and the rocks fell from the mound. The second morning they again began work on the mound, but as the men slept that night the rocks were again scattered by the winds.
Once more, on the third morning, the builders set to their task. But once more, as the men lay near the mound that night, wrapped in slumber, the winds came with so great force that the rocks were hurled down on them.
The men were not killed, but when daylight came and they made their way from beneath the rocks and began to speak to one another, all were astounded as well as alarmed -they spoke various languages and could not understand one another.
Some continued thenceforward to speak the original tongue, the language of the Choctaw, and from these sprung the Choctaw tribe. The others, who could not understand this language, began to fight among themselves. Finally they separated.
The Choctaw remained the original people; the others scattered, some going north, some east, and others west, and formed various tribes. This explains why there are so many tribes throughout the country at the present time."
What we learn from this one passage is:
1. The Choctaw think they retained the original language spoken before the Tower of Babel incident. Personally, I believe the original language was Hebrew, but that's just me...
http://www.edenics.com
It seems to be that God did something from the very framework of their brains or whatnot, and from each person or group's perspective, each one stayed the same and everyone else's languages changed. (I hope this is making sense)... The reason I have this theory is that each version of this account that I've read so far acts as if their language and culture were preserved.
2. Just like the biblical passage in Genesis 2:7 (where Adam is created from either dust, mud, or dirt...depending in the translation you use: sorry to say, I'm not an expert on the Hebrew language, though it is on my list), the Choctaw story says that the 1st man was created from yellow clay.
3. It seems to completely skip the flood story, if this is to be taken as from those who traveled from ancient Sumer, and goes straight to a similar Tower of Babel narrative.
"Did they all scatter to their own areas based solely on language?"
No, I don't believe so. According to Genesis 10 and 11 (The Table of Nations) and then a bit of 1st Chronicles, one could show how the peoples thence, at least from the beginning, split up in regards to both language and ethnic group. I've done at least some Asian related study on this...
"All of the people who spoke 'Native American' (let's be general as it's hard to define what the actual languages were) ran off, then crossed an ocean or took a land bridge through Alaska and every single one of them settled in the Americas?"
Well, that's the Toltec explanation of things:
http://members.aol.com/adobebill/E_Flood.html
"Found in the histories of the Toltec Indians of ancient Mexico is a story of the first world that lasted 1,716 years and was destroyed by a great flood that covered even the highest mountains. Their story tells of a few men who escaped the destruction in a toptlipetlocali, which means a closed chest. Following the great flood, these men began to multiply and built a very high zacuali, or great tower, to provide a safe place if the world were destroyed again. However, everyone started to speak different languages, and the people became confused, so different language groups wandered to other parts of the world. (Sounds familiar? Maybe like the Tower of Babel?) The Toltecs claim they started as a family of seven friends and their wives who spoke the same language. They crossed great waters, lived in caves, and wandered 104 years until they came to Hue Hue Tlapalan (southern Mexico). The story reports that this was 520 years after the great flood."
"There was an argument earlier that all languages should be spoken everywhere today. This argument is completely valid. Wouldn't some groups stay in Babel regardless of their new language and 'tough it out?' Why would everyone who speaks a certain language ALL stick together? Wouldn't they splinter, thus creating pockets of the same language in multiple areas throughout the world?"
Imagine if you were in a situation like that. Wouldn't it make sense to huddle near to others that spoke your same language and try to make sense of what is going on around you? But, then again, the biblical passage doesn't refute your statements. There may be more to what your accessing, so I for one will make that one of my top priorities in my research in this matter,
"Ask yourself what would happen if the same thing happened today in a given area. I doubt the residents of that area would scatter. Instead, they would likely try to find common ground and it's likely a new 'common' language would be invented. Give humanity some credit for goodness sake. We don't always run away from crisis. Humans actually tend to embrace each other at such times."
Let's use the Katrina situation in New Orleans as an example. People will go to wherever they need to feel safe. I live in San Antonio, Texas, for example, and we were and still are considered a safety zone for those that escaped toward safety. From what I can assume, ancient Egypt, though it didn't have a pharaoh and probably wasn't all desert at the time, (I'm assuming from this example alone), was considered one of a few safety zones at it's time through Mizraim (Gen. 10:6 - Mizraim is the Hebrew name for the land of Egypt)
"Of course, God could make us do anything. If that's the case, what's the point of living? God's calling the shots, so we're all subject to his whims."
That's another topic of discussion,
...Excuse me if I don't use the proper quotation method, since I haven't been here for a while and need to take some time to settle back into the scheme of things...
This message has been edited by bibbo, 02-09-2006 08:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by LAKDAR, posted 01-27-2006 11:57 AM LAKDAR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 12:59 PM bibbo has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 198 (285561)
02-10-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by bibbo
02-09-2006 8:44 PM


insignificant
I think there are reasons to doubt the significance of your Choctaw "Babel" story.
That particular story is copied word for word from an early 20th century compilation of Native American stories. This work places this story with a group that are obviously derived from European stories. The Native Americans were in contact with Europeans, of course, and would be expected to borrow stories from them:
In the stories of certain tribes the recent influence of the Europeans is very apparent. The French in Canada, the Spanish in the Southwest, and the negroes in the Southeast have contributed many tales to the tribes in their respective territories. Usually the Indians recognize these definitely as borrowings. European phraseology, background, and ideas abound. Not fewer than fifty well-known European tales are current among the American Indians. Several good examples of such tales, as well as of Bible narratives, form chapters VIII and IX of this collection.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by bibbo, posted 02-09-2006 8:44 PM bibbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by bibbo, posted 02-10-2006 1:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
bibbo
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 198 (285576)
02-10-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Chiroptera
02-10-2006 12:59 PM


Re: insignificant
Chiroptera, do you have a theory or motive as to why the Choctaw in particular would want to borrow a story such as this from the Europeans?
I mean, if truly it was borrowed, then I'd expect more than a mere similarity in stories... For example, in this version, we see that it mentions "a man called A'taam and a woman called Iim", obviously Adam and Eve. If this story was borrowed, then wouldn't it follow that the names be exactly the same?
Example:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm
"Fitzroy River area, Western Australian:
During the Dreamtime flood, woramba, the Ark Gumana carrying Noah, Aborigines, and animals, drifted south and came to rest in the flood plain of Djilinbadu (about 70 km south of Noonkanbah Station, just south of the Barbwire Range and east of the Worral Range), where it can still be seen today. The white man's claim that it landed in the Middle East was a lie to keep Aborigines in subservience. [Kolig, pp. 242-245]"
It would not seem fit here to say that Noah's name would be used. Noah of course is a Hebrew name and the aborigines, well, soOoOoOoooo... Well, you get the idea. I can only figure 2 ideas from this story:
1. It was borrowed.
or
2. The aborigines already had a flood story and figured "the white man" changed it around a bit.
My 2 bits...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 12:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 1:33 PM bibbo has replied
 Message 168 by lfen, posted 02-12-2006 3:53 PM bibbo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 198 (285588)
02-10-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by bibbo
02-10-2006 1:21 PM


Re: insignificant
quote:
Chiroptera, do you have a theory or motive as to why the Choctaw in particular would want to borrow a story such as this from the Europeans?
Are you skeptical about the well-established phenomenon of people sharing stories and borrowing them from the other cultures with whom they are in contact? It is well known that people borrow stories from other cultures and adapt them fit into their own society.
-
quote:
I mean, if truly it was borrowed, then I'd expect more than a mere similarity in stories
Interesting. Why would you expect that?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by bibbo, posted 02-10-2006 1:21 PM bibbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by bibbo, posted 02-10-2006 10:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
bibbo
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 198 (285769)
02-10-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Chiroptera
02-10-2006 1:33 PM


Re: insignificant
quote:
Are you skeptical about the well-established phenomenon of people sharing stories and borrowing them from the other cultures with whom they are in contact? It is well known that people borrow stories from other cultures and adapt them fit into their own society.
No. I'm not skeptical at all. In fact, I partially agree with you. A good example is Catholocism. In order to gain converts, it added on certain holidays and traditions to make their position look a bit more appealing to the "pagan" masses.
quote:
Interesting. Why would you expect that?
The Aborigine version, for example, used Noah's name directly. But when the languages changed, and taking into account the expanse of time and that it was not going by use of scrolls, papyrus, stone, or whatnot as used by the ancients, names of people, places, things, etc. would be changed as well. Plus also the entire worldview of people at this ancient Sumerian backdrop was taking a turn as well, so it would not be uncommon to see a story with a turtle talking to a man and telling him to escape a coming flood (goofy example, but I hope you get the idea as to where I am going with this)...
This message has been edited by bibbo, 02-10-2006 10:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 1:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 11:13 PM bibbo has replied
 Message 159 by ReverendDG, posted 02-10-2006 11:33 PM bibbo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 198 (285774)
02-10-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by bibbo
02-10-2006 10:16 PM


Re: insignificant
quote:
(goofy example, but I hope you get the idea as to where I am going with this)...
Not really, since the question is why you doubt that the Choctaw "Babel" story is a result of contact with the European version.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by bibbo, posted 02-10-2006 10:16 PM bibbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-10-2006 11:37 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 162 by bibbo, posted 02-11-2006 8:23 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 159 of 198 (285777)
02-10-2006 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by bibbo
02-10-2006 10:16 PM


Re: insignificant
The Aborigine version, for example, used Noah's name directly. But when the languages changed, and taking into account the expanse of time and that it was not going by use of scrolls, papyrus, stone, or whatnot as used by the ancients, names of people, places, things, etc.
The thing is a lot of people ommit the times when people believed them, or it is unknown, more than likely if they use the name of noah then, its from the last 200 years when they came in contact with the english missionaries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by bibbo, posted 02-10-2006 10:16 PM bibbo has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 160 of 198 (285779)
02-10-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Chiroptera
02-10-2006 11:13 PM


Re: insignificant
Yeah, if you visited Haiti, you would find amazing voodoo shrines with European saints in them, and Christian grave sites with voodoo charms.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 11:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2006 1:47 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 198 (285843)
02-11-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Omnivorous
02-10-2006 11:37 PM


It's a mystery.
You know, Omnivorous, I can understand why a Biblical literalist would want her creation myths to be true. What I have trouble understanding is why she would be so desperate for confirming evidence that she will just blindly accept any evidence or "reasoning" no matter how lame, and will automatically dismiss any refutation of that evidence no matter how reasonable and consistent with what we actually do see.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-10-2006 11:37 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
bibbo
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 198 (285901)
02-11-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Chiroptera
02-10-2006 11:13 PM


Re: insignificant
quote:
Not really, since the question is why you doubt that the Choctaw "Babel" story is a result of contact with the European version.
Because I would then be surpressing the Choctaw, not to mention the ancient world as a whole, as a people and thereby not give them the benefit of the doubt. As far as I'm concerned, their innocent 'til proven guilty. I find the ancient world as one massive, bent, out-of-shape puzzle, and modern Western society is too quick to judge them as heathonous, superstitious numbskulls.
I just want to make sense out of it all...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 11:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 163 of 198 (285905)
02-11-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Chiroptera
02-11-2006 1:47 PM


Re: It's a mystery.
What I have trouble understanding is why she would be so desperate for confirming evidence that she will just blindly accept any evidence or "reasoning" no matter how lame, and will automatically dismiss any refutation of that evidence no matter how reasonable and consistent with what we actually do see.
That is one of the greatest mysteries to me as well, Chiroptera, but we see it consisently here.
I know that people tend to focus on confirming evidence and to underestimate or ignore negative evidence. We see it clearly in both simple logic tests and in real world scenarios.
We have all experienced that "Aha!" rush when our opinion appears to be confirmed by a new piece of data. But some people examine the full data set critically after new data appears, and some do not.
Maybe we're so hardwired this way that without the training or discipline to counteract that native/naive tendency, it just takes over.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2006 1:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 02-11-2006 9:45 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 164 of 198 (285910)
02-11-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Omnivorous
02-11-2006 8:43 PM


Re: It's a mystery.
Maybe we're so hardwired this way that without the training or discipline to counteract that native/naive tendency, it just takes over.
Well the human use of belief in modeling the world in which we act is a very important brain function and it's tied in to other brain functions so that capacity or vulnerablity exists but I think it is short of hardwiring.
I think the phenomenon is gullibility and obediance to leadership or what true believers call "faith". I recently read a book by Ann Rule called Everything She Ever Wanted about the crimes and sorry psychology of a sociopath. The thing that was hardest to understand was that her mother supported her and believed in her, finding ways to deny the evidence in order to maintain her "faith" in her daughter. This woman disowned and blamed her grand daughter because she cooperated with the district attorney's investigations of her mother's crimes. I cite this as an obviously extreme example that demonstrates how the human mind will function to maintain a cherished belief.
It is my observation that if a belief is emotionally important enough to an individual then there is no way to convince them otherwise. There are always rhetorical evasions that allow them to return to seeing things as they want to see them and the established religions of this world have had a lot longer to develop these rhetorical buttresses of their illogic than science has had to refuted them.
Religions have had much longer to evolve to fit and support and use human psychology than science has. Looking at it like that it becomes easier for me to understand why so many prefer religion to science.
The brain is vulnerable to delusion. Another example is the condition where people believe they are dead and bloodless. One case I read about a psychiatrist pricked the patient's fingers to produce a drop of blood. The patient did not respond by seeing through his delusion, but simply stated as evidence that he was correct that it was only a very little blood!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 8:43 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Omnivorous, posted 02-11-2006 10:48 PM lfen has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 165 of 198 (285918)
02-11-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by lfen
02-11-2006 9:45 PM


Re: It's a mystery.
An epigram to set the mood:
"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives."
--Francis Bacon
I certainly wouldn't describe the scenario you describe as the result of hardwiring--in fact, I probably shouldn't use the term hardwiring to describe anything about the human mind, it is so plastic and malleable.
Yet we can see some "atomic" level mental phenomena that mirror such disconnects, and I think confirmation bias is one of them.
Experimental subjects asked to turn over cards to prove or disprove a proposed rule connecting the two sides invariably seek confirmatory evidence, fail to seek negative evidence, and often ignore negative evidence when it turns up.
Science implicitly recognizes this tendency and is structured to combat it.
As Wiki puts it:
Confirmation bias is a type of statistical bias describing the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses.
That's dry and intellectualized, but the effect can profoundly shape our perceptions and conclusions about the world around us.
Here is an excellent passage from skepdic.com:
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established upon solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.
If a human consciousness is shaped by such effects for many years, without any sort of corrective training, education, or influence, then the result can appear quite insane. The more we wish our beliefs to be confirmed, the less evidence we require to enjoy that confirmation.
I'm not arguing that this one phenomenon explains the type of behavior you describe, but I would argue that it is foundational.
And I'm not sure I agree that religion has evolved ever better techniques. They seem pretty much the same now as they were thousands of years ago.
The book, Everything She Ever Wanted, sounds fascinating. I'll check it out.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-11-2006 10:49 PM

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 02-11-2006 9:45 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by lfen, posted 02-12-2006 3:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024