Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
veiledvirtue
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 306 (314078)
05-21-2006 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
05-20-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
nicely said Faith
you only feel like your going to get slaughtered because youre going against common worldly moral, which is taking a nose dive into self indulgence
what you said is good. others seem to be generating personally tailored views to fit their lifestyles. a misguided common theme nowadays

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 7:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 05-21-2006 3:14 AM veiledvirtue has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 242 of 306 (314079)
05-21-2006 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by macaroniandcheese
05-21-2006 2:15 AM


tracking the cause-effect is no sure thing
like having cervical cancer because you were a good girl and waited until marriage and your husband wasn't so clean like a friend of mine's mother.
faith, your happy little world of right and wrong and reprocussions just isn't realistic. god doesn't protect the good and punish the wicked. stop acting like this is the case.
Sigh. Look, I can't say EVERYTHING in one post. But you remind me I did think of adding an edit on this and didn't get back to it.
Obviously the operations of the moral law are incredibly complex considering all the different kinds of sins and the fact that we inherit sin as well as committing our own. Tracking the cause-effect relationship between sin (or good behavior) and consequence is not something I claim anyone can do for this reason, although sometimes I think we have some clues.
And you know, if you don't want me to bite, as you put it, you might practice some restraint in your bratty rudeness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 2:15 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 8:23 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 306 (314081)
05-21-2006 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by veiledvirtue
05-21-2006 2:25 AM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
you only feel like your going to get slaughtered because youre going against common worldly moral, which is taking a nose dive into self indulgence
what you said is good. others seem to be generating personally tailored views to fit their lifestyles. a misguided common theme nowadays
All true, but I wish it were only worldly morals as usual myself, instead of this transformation of the whole culture into the image of the Man of Sin as it were.
Thanks VV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by veiledvirtue, posted 05-21-2006 2:25 AM veiledvirtue has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 244 of 306 (314082)
05-21-2006 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by macaroniandcheese
05-21-2006 2:09 AM


Re: misunderstanding
i'm just saying it fucks with your head. read. good god, man.
Uh... I'm not sure how you could read that section of mine which you quoted and thought I was only talking about relationships. The first paragraph itself involved nonsexual issues where people could be just as manipulated or change themselves personally due to flow of strong NEUROTRANSMITTERS.
Heck my gf just did an article for a psych paper on the effects on behavior of women from menopause. They were really fucked up but it had nothing to do with doing or not doing something. That is likely the same thing as in puberty with hormones all racing around.
And I'm telling you SEX ITSELF, the act of having sex does not "fuck with your head". Or at least not in the way you are portraying it. Maybe you should lay out exactly what these changes are?
couldn't we get physical sexual information from other sources besides the class? isn't that what parents are for?
Yes and no. Sex ed is offered because information on sexual health was not necessarily available to all people who are parents, that some facts change and parents may not be up on them, and that this is an objective skill set... like teaching the rest of biology... which parents can feel confident in allowing someone else to teach so they don't have to.
i'm not suggesting a cultural indoctrination program.
You mean you are not intending to talk about one. The devil is in the details of practice. What is obvious to you is NOT what is factually true in how it will be implemented.
i'm talking about discussing impacts and rights. as in legal rights. i have the right to not ever be coerced into anything. i have a right to be prepared to rebuff such. if our parents can't tell us what a penis is for, do you really think they are going to be able to tell us how to say no to someone?
This is a discussion of life coaching and the "impacts" and "legal rights" differ from region to region and over time. Yeah I agree you have the right to rebuff coercion. But what counts as coercion? To a raving antisex feminist and a Xian fundie these may be too totally seperate things, even if both called coercion.
Legal rights are especially slippery. So if porn is outlawed you be for teachers telling your kids they should be thinking its bad and rejecting it and turning in friends and parents who might have it? What if homosexual marriage is made unconstitutional, you want teachers telling your kids they should resist people trying to get them into homosexual relationships because they may have no future? Heck, homosexual sex itself was not a right up until a couple years ago, and was a crime in most places. In some areas having sex with vibrators is still a crime and not a right. I know I don't want my kids taught about legal rights from a state appointed "teacher".
i'm not talking about indoctrinating kids with anyones beliefs. i'm talking about telling kids that sex is thus. and sex can cause thus. false emotional attachment is a sexually transmitted disease just like aids. coercion is rape. if someone says "if you really loved me," it is rape. and kids deserve to be prepared to rebuff it. i'm not talking about individualism, i'm talking about personal safety. metal health is health.
Wow, that says it all. I am leaving it as a whole so that people can see exactly what I am talking about. You are CLEARLY interested in indoctrinating kids with your own beliefs.
False emotional attachment is a sexually transmitted disease like AIDs? Holy shit how is that NOT going to screw up a proper sex ed class? Such hyperbole!
False emotional attachment happens in sexual relationships and nonsexual relationships and it has socio-psychological impact, not epidemiological impact of a virus.
And I'm just aghast that you'd equate a person saying "if you loved me" with rape. That has absolutely NOTHING in common with rape. You are simply preparing a whole class of new "I, victim" pathologies.
I totally grant that you may have been hurt by someone emotionally. Apparently because you felt that you wanted someone's love and to prove your own love and so have sex, which I guess you really didn't want to do? Okay. That's you. It is legitimate for you to feel that way for yourself.
What is not true is that you have to tell everyone else that your subjective vision is how everyone else should feel and be outraged and hurt. It doesn't sound healthy to me at all and I would not be teaching my kids that at all.
It's exactly why I want teachers sticking to facts and not trying to convert my kids to whatever the US victim culture wants others to believe.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 2:09 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 8:15 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 245 of 306 (314084)
05-21-2006 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
05-20-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
Well I'm going to get slaughtered here
Not by me. You have consistently overestimated my animosity to what you believe.
My views of sex education are completely based on God's law as revealed in the Bible, and in some sense I only apply this law to Bible believers because they are the only ones who respect that law. However, since it is a universal law, it affects everyone equally.
I get that's your view and that's fine. Just as I believe there is no universal law (you are mistaken). And I would NOT want my views foisted onto your worldviews (or vice versa) through an educational course.
That said, I was raised Xian and have a pretty decent knowledge of the scriptures and think you may not be availing yourself of some worthy aspects of modern sex ed, that could be palatable to you. But you'll see...
Also, it is primarily not about health or self-respect, it's about living in accord with this law, a law that runs this universe -- and if you do that, as a consequence you will be blessed with health, and if you don't do that you can count on negative repercussions.
Okay to me that actually reads as sex ed SHOULD be about health and self respect, only you have an additional dimension. While "liberal" programs focus on the physical and mental dimensions you believe in a spiritual dimension. You are worried about impacts on spiritual health and self-respect. Indeed even what issues might effect the culture in a spiritual pandemic so to speak, which can lead to real physical and mental problems later.
Let me know if I got you wrong. If I'm right then I see exactly what you are saying and this is why I agree with your later comment...
It is the permissive tenets of the Sexual Revolution that are now running our sex ed classes. This philosophy says anything that turns you on is OK, is healthy, is good, as long as -- oh things like, as long as you are well informed about it, are respectful about it, don't impose it on anyone, are careful about health issues, and similar standards. *
* Edit: Here's a possible misunderstanding I'd like to try to catch in advance if I can. Abstinence is also taught as an option of course, within these relativist parameters, because the standard is whatever the individual thinks is right. In practice what this means is that abstinence is only respected as an individual attitude and not as a standard in itself. In practice sexual permissiveness is the guiding standard just because there is no absolute standard against it.
Well I should say that not all operate as you suggest, nor must they, but certainly you have seen it suggested by schraf and MrJack and brenna. You should have noticed me fighting them on that. To be fair to them they were not teaching the tenets of the sexual revolution exactly, but a more modern fem postfem victim culture version. But the idea is the same.
And yeah they (and you) could rightly criticize me for wanting to teach kids a libertine sexual revolutionary vision (pretty close to what you outlined though not exact). But that is only IF sex ed included socio-psycho elements of respect and spirituality... which is exactly why I am arguing it should not! I don't want have the state or any other health official teach your kids my philosophy.
Here's the deal, unless you are believing that God is not working through viral and bacterial agents, and these diseases simply "appear" in a person when he makes a judgement... Or that pregnancies occur by a baby simply appearing... physical description of how the reproductive system works and what environmental factors are faced with sexual activity helps a good xian just as much as anyone else. It does not and cannot promote "bad" behavior.
Yes, people should not be taught any behavior is "bad" or "good" by a sex educator. Who are we to say anyway (remember the garden)? But that is not to say they should be left to do as they will either. Such questions should be forwarded to parents and other important persons in one's lives (like pastors). How sex effects one beyond the purely physical dimension, including later physical aspects derived from spiritual/cultural issues, is up to them to put into perspective for that person not sex educators.
What sex education allows a person, any person of any culture, to have is the knowledge of how the body works on the physical level and what that person can do to prevent certain physical issues. I do not know of any scripture which says that is not something valuable for people to have.
And the fact is that that helps people later in marriage (those who wait) just as much as it would a rampant libertine. The evidence is showing that innocents even according to your own eyes, are suffering because of physical issues they were not aware of.
I might add that Jesus generally tended to be merciful and aid those physically who were unworthy and made mistakes. Remember the addage of helping those even the ones you view as most vile. If people are going to make mistakes, isn't it better to be forgiving and at least help them avoid or deal with some of the worst physical issues? Doesn't that help you as much as them by alleviating suffering?
I guess I find it odd to believe that sex ed's ability to help people avoid contagion and unwanted pregnancy, in the short term, would be powerful enough to overcome God's will for man.
And I also am not certain why one holding such a position would not be against the medical profession in total, including all aids to the suffering of women in childbirth. Why is it sufficient to prevent the masses from knowing what the doctors know?
But those are side issues. My main idea is that while we are certainly personal philosophical enemies, your ad hominem against my beliefs reflecting my vision of your own, we do not have to disagree on the teaching of clinical knowledge regarding the body to those who lack such knowledge.
As a point of fact, you say my sexual philosophy leads to cultural suicide, but it is proven that in areas where your moral philosophy holds sway and abstinence is the only message taught, the worst ills are occuring. Despite my shock at how some people in my community are ignoring clinical knowledge they have access to, they are certainly fairing better than YOUR communities. The worst hit at this point are the ones with no clinical knowledge, or are ignoring such clinical knowledge.
Doesn't that argue by itself that ignorance of clinical knowledge (regardless of moral beliefs) is what the problem is? I might add that HIV was not initially sexual and continues to be spread via bush-meat eating along with lines of new SIV-type transfers. Last I read there were at least two more varieties and it is increasing among african exotics. You can preach against sex all you like, with regard to HIV the cause was interaction with contagious exotic animals in a nonsexual fashion, and such interactions combined with globalization will hit us in many different fronts in the future.
Abstinence until marriage, with monogamy, will not help one bit to a family in Africa who uses or participates in the bush-meat industry. If a husband comes down with it, should they not know how to prevent the wife from contracting it? Or is she supposed to divorce him?
Clinical knowledge has no moral value.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 7:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Jazzns, posted 05-21-2006 11:14 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 05-22-2006 11:56 AM Silent H has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 246 of 306 (314094)
05-21-2006 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by CK
05-19-2006 7:12 AM


Re: Who's in Charge?
Oh, ok, so when you guys say "Abstinece-only" you mean that the schools would teach only that, and not teach sex-ed?
I am not for that. The kids must learn everything there is to know about sex. I think it should start with the parents teaching them.
This world needs people to get parenting licenses, but that will never happen. There are basics that kids need to know, about drugs, and sex. I teach my kids about it from a very young age.
I think that the schools should teach about abstinence, but not abstinence-only, of-course that would never work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by CK, posted 05-19-2006 7:12 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 8:32 AM riVeRraT has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 247 of 306 (314099)
05-21-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Silent H
05-21-2006 5:29 AM


Re: misunderstanding
This is a discussion of life coaching and the "impacts" and "legal rights" differ from region to region and over time. Yeah I agree you have the right to rebuff coercion. But what counts as coercion? To a raving antisex feminist and a Xian fundie these may be too totally seperate things, even if both called coercion.
and people in different areas have different school boards that build different curricula. you're not giving real responses here. there is a legal definition of coercion.
Legal rights are especially slippery. So if porn is outlawed you be for teachers telling your kids they should be thinking its bad and rejecting it and turning in friends and parents who might have it? What if homosexual marriage is made unconstitutional, you want teachers telling your kids they should resist people trying to get them into homosexual relationships because they may have no future? Heck, homosexual sex itself was not a right up until a couple years ago, and was a crime in most places. In some areas having sex with vibrators is still a crime and not a right. I know I don't want my kids taught about legal rights from a state appointed "teacher".
no. you don't tell people it's bad. you tell them it's illegal. and since when is marriage the goal of a relationship?
and guess what. in your american government class, state teachers are teaching your kids about legal rights.
And I'm just aghast that you'd equate a person saying "if you loved me" with rape. That has absolutely NOTHING in common with rape. You are simply preparing a whole class of new "I, victim" pathologies.
it is legal coercion and thus rape.
I totally grant that you may have been hurt by someone emotionally. Apparently because you felt that you wanted someone's love and to prove your own love and so have sex, which I guess you really didn't want to do? Okay. That's you. It is legitimate for you to feel that way for yourself.
nope. way off base. just because i talk about something doesn't mean i experienced it.
It's exactly why I want teachers sticking to facts and not trying to convert my kids to whatever the US victim culture wants others to believe.
you're insane. i'm not talking about making victims. i'm talking about empowering people with all the facts.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 05-21-2006 5:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Jazzns, posted 05-21-2006 11:25 AM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 261 by Silent H, posted 05-22-2006 4:55 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 248 of 306 (314101)
05-21-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
05-21-2006 2:32 AM


Re: tracking the cause-effect is no sure thing
And you know, if you don't want me to bite, as you put it, you might practice some restraint in your bratty rudeness.
it is not bratty to call you on being wrong just because you're older than me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 05-21-2006 2:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 05-21-2006 1:59 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 249 of 306 (314103)
05-21-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by riVeRraT
05-21-2006 7:44 AM


Re: Who's in Charge?
abstinence only education includes misinformation created by certain organizations in order to teach kids that the only way is to not have sex until marriage. this misinformation includes such as 'condoms can't protect you from aids or even pregnancy because the pores are too big'. this is scientifically false. completely. but i learned it in my sex-ed class. this kind of information leads to a slight delay in sexual activity followed by sex without precautions and often oral or anal sex because "it isn't really sex". anal sex is more prone to transmission because of the lack of natural lubrication and much less sturdy tissue.
thus, we see more disease and more pregnancy.
i'm all about abstinence. i don't think there's anything wrong with sex at any time or for any reason, but waiting sure can't hurt you if you approach it responsibly and don't repress things. self-love is always better than spreading it around. however, it's not something we should be teaching using false information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by riVeRraT, posted 05-21-2006 7:44 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 250 of 306 (314125)
05-21-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
05-20-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
Message 11
Great job. Honestly.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 05-20-2006 7:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 05-21-2006 2:00 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 251 of 306 (314126)
05-21-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Silent H
05-21-2006 6:23 AM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
Message 12

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 05-21-2006 6:23 AM Silent H has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 252 of 306 (314130)
05-21-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by macaroniandcheese
05-21-2006 8:15 AM


Re: misunderstanding
I think my position is somewhere betten you and holmes on this. I think kids should be taught that forced sex is illegal and that they do have a right to say no. This in fact should be done from elementary school on up because sexual exploitation does not just affect those who have gone or are going through puberty.
One comment of your stands out though.
holmes writes:
And I'm just aghast that you'd equate a person saying "if you loved me" with rape. That has absolutely NOTHING in common with rape. You are simply preparing a whole class of new "I, victim" pathologies.
brennakimi writes:
it is legal coercion and thus rape.
Where has the legal precedent defined the "if you love me" as coercion in a rape case? I am not saying it hasn't. I would just like to see some backup for it.
If it has though, then I that is really crap. While the area between psychological coercion and peer pressure is pretty gray, we shouldn't be assigning victim status that coincides with gullability. The base of the slippery slope that this leads to is a "legal pandemic" where the courts are going to be dragged into (and even scarier making rulings on!!) every intracacy of an imperfect physical and emotional relationship.
I say this of course with deepest regards for whatever trauma you may have undergone in your life. Every circumstance is going to be different of course. I hope I don't offend you.
Edited by Jazzns, : grammar

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 8:15 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 11:43 AM Jazzns has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 253 of 306 (314134)
05-21-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Jazzns
05-21-2006 11:25 AM


Re: misunderstanding
This in fact should be done from elementary school on up because sexual exploitation does not just affect those who have gone or are going through puberty.
very good point.
Where has the legal precedent defined the "if you love me" as coercion in a rape case? I am not saying it hasn't. I would just like to see some backup for it.
If it has though, then I that is really crap. While the area between psychological coercion and peer pressure is pretty gray, we shouldn't be assigning victim status that coincides with gullability.
actually. i haven't got any case law. i should look into it (lazy). but it is also legally rape if you change your mind during sex and don't tell your partner. i don't necessarily agree with that, but i do know that there may be times when you change your mind and don't feel safe stating such. psychological coercion (including peer pressure) is wrong in any case. people must be free to make up their own minds. and just because someone falls for a line doesn't make them gullible or mean that they have a victim complex. if someone is taken advantage of, they deserve recourse. just because our current society is full of fakers who have created a judicial mess of coffee spills doesn't change the reality of sexual violation. if a child is told by a molestor that if he says anything to anyone about the violation that they'll just punish the child does the fact that he's a child or that he was scared enoug to believe it change that it is coercion and wrong? child or adult, people can be prey to the strangest things. this doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be protected.
I say this of course with deepest regards for whatever trauma you may have undergone in your life. Every circumstance is going to be different of course. I hope I don't offend you.
that's all i'm saying. every circumstance is different. but we can prepare for such things and educate our children on how to defend themselves.
i completely agree that such defensive education should be done early. but then i think that sex-ed should be taught early and gradually. do you teach a 5 year old how to put on a condom? no. but you do teach a five year old that babies come from mommies and daddies. and that sometimes people will try to do things they shouldn't to you and no one will be mad at you if you report it. do you teach a ten year old how to put on a condom? maybe we should. have you seen the movie kids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Jazzns, posted 05-21-2006 11:25 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Jazzns, posted 05-22-2006 1:03 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 306 (314155)
05-21-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by macaroniandcheese
05-21-2006 8:23 AM


Re: tracking the cause-effect is no sure thing
it is not bratty to call you on being wrong just because you're older than me.
You were wrong in this case and therefore doubly wrong to "call" me on my views as you did. It is bratty to "call" anybody on "being wrong" and especially bratty from your own stupidly wrong perspective (it works both ways).
The following is pure brattiness, full of sarcasm and arrogance. And telling me flat out to stop thinking as I do is beyond rude:
faith, your happy little world of right and wrong and reprocussions just isn't realistic. god doesn't protect the good and punish the wicked. stop acting like this is the case.
I can just go back to ignoring you however, if you have no intentions of dropping your brat act.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 8:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-21-2006 4:16 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 306 (314157)
05-21-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Jazzns
05-21-2006 11:14 AM


Re: Attempt at a complete outline of my position
Well, thanks, jazz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Jazzns, posted 05-21-2006 11:14 AM Jazzns 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