Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Definition of Evolution
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 154 of 212 (419811)
09-04-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 12:11 AM


Re: Post of the Month
NJ writes:
Well, to be fair, science as a general rule of thumb must base its fledgling theories with observation, testing of hypotheses, and repeating the processes. Neither of those fit the criteria for the theory of evolution.
Darwinian macroevolution has never been directly observed, to which you might reply, it takes years and years to accumulate enough minor gradations. Its like trying to watch fingernails grow!
But the thing is, fossils are snapshots in history. And in the same way you might not be able to see one's fingernails or hair grow, directly, you can still see clear evidence of it from those snapshots.
The fossil record is inept in answering these questions because we do not see any clear examples of transitional forms. Indeed, this has long been the problem for evolutionists. But the argument is brought up so much now or days against evolution that it is not as widely admitted as it was in the past.
The second tier is with the fact that evolution cannot be duplicated in a lab. For instance, the Dros[o]phila Melanogaster, which is your average fruit fly. Numerous scientists have bombarded these fruit flies with X-ray radiation, among other techniques, in order to mutate them. Well, it worked remarkably well. They were able to produce offspring with eyes missing and wings growing out of their heads. But I suppose the point is, no bionic fruit fly was ever the bi-product of these experiments. (No dragonflies, houseflies, horseflies, butterflies, were ever bioengineered-- just fruit flies and lots of them).
Of those that actually survived essentially produced monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated them in the wild. Natural selection works against the typical evolutionary model because it does not further the advancement of mutations, but rather, tends to weed out any aberrations.
The Drosophila has been no exception to the rule. Even more damning, the fruit fly is molecularly very simple in relation to that of a human. What is worse, their lifespan is not even a thousandth to that of the average human lifespan. What does this mean? Essentially, it means that the fruit fly has the physical ability to evolve more readily than that of a human being. The fruit fly is relatively simple with a genome, composed of four pairs of chromosomes, of about 13,000 genes.
Aside from this, they breed at a much quicker rate. So, then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, about three generations, and maybe four in that amount of time.
If ever there were a prime candidate for proving macroevolution, the Drosophilia would be it, and yet, nothing even comparable has ever been established.
Lastly, they cannot repeat the results of the experiment because they cannot simulate it in the lab to begin with.
Therefore, I scarcely see how dissenting objections to evolution should be viewed with such scathing anger. (Not you, but in general) For how ever misguided you'd like to say creationists are, they have some very reasonable objections to the theory.
Having said that, they have to respond to some very reasonable postulates presented by evolutionists until a solid consensus can't be found in some appreciable way.
This is the Post of the Month. Extremely well written and fluid (keeps moving).
While very few posts are perfect (as is seen in the fact that NJ concedes microevolution, which we know is false) this post is still excellent, especially the part where it says that the geological fossil record is not admitted to not support ToE as it was in the past - so true. Evolutionists (ordinary ones) simply lie; published scholarship has always admitted that the fossil record shows no signs of the reason for being evidence (species transitioning).
Hats off to NJ.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 12:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2007 9:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 157 by AdminWounded, posted 09-05-2007 5:24 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 159 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2007 6:04 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 1:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 156 of 212 (419818)
09-04-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
09-04-2007 9:48 PM


Re: Post of the Month -- but NJ was OT (as well as wrong)
Do you agree that the definition of evolution is:
"Change in a population's genetic traits across generations"
It does not matter what any given person thinks (subjective) the definition to be, what matters is how scholarship (objective) defines said word. Your definition is a variant of the genetic definition. The genetic definition is not the only valid definition. In fact, the genetic definition was first postulated by R.A. Fisher in the early 1930s. The ensuing biological synthesis (until 1950) became divided into two camps: the geneticists and the naturalists. The latter was led by Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley. While Mayr agrees that the genetic definition is important he rejects it to represent the meaning of evolution. Evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies, it is an observation, an inference made after the fact based on variation, homologies, inheritance and fossils. Evolution is an observation (traditional understanding) the naturalist position.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2007 9:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 161 of 212 (419908)
09-05-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
09-05-2007 7:23 AM


Re: back to the definition(s)
And yet Ernst Mayr "contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept" and he also defined evolution as:
Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species.
Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157
[Ray: where is your second quote mark?]
First off, Mayr is known for populational thinking and not the synthesis of Mendelian genetics into Darwinian science.
I originally said that Mayr said that the genetic aspect of evolution IS IMPORTANT, but it is not the primary definition; therefore, your use of Mayr is a quote mine:
Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature: "....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by 'upward' reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.' The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principal object of selection, and the population...." ''(What Evolution Is,'' 2001:XIV).
I hope you choose to respond in a timely fashion (as you normally do) because I would really like to settle this issue.
Ray
PS: I may have to serve a short suspension soon.
RM
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 1:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 162 of 212 (419909)
09-05-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AdminWounded
09-05-2007 5:24 AM


Re: Post of the Month
You do realise there is a perfectly good Thread POTM - September 2007 in existence entirely for this sort of thing. Why repost NJ's entire post in the thread it is already in instead of in the POTM thread where it will get wider exposure?
Yeah, I knew but I forgot.
I apologize.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AdminWounded, posted 09-05-2007 5:24 AM AdminWounded has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 165 of 212 (419966)
09-05-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
09-05-2007 1:23 PM


Re: back to the definition(s)
Right where I left it (after concept).
I meant for the material quoted from page 157.
He is known for both.
Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia
Who wrote the article on Mayr? Ninja Turtle, 007, Son of Sam or Britney Spears? Or did all of them have a say?
The point is that Wikipedia is not a source.
He is also known for inconsistency. I suggested you read Mods Message 122 and follow the links: apparently you haven't done that. One of them was
Sandwalk: What Is Evolution?
Mods msg #122 says nothing about Mayr. You are saying that Larry Moran says that Mayr is inconsistent - no?
The Gene Centrist Objection
Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay. SNIP...
What essay is being referred to here? Is it this one?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
How does blog writer know that Mayr wrote said book to reply to said essay?
IF it is Larry Moran who says Mayr is inconsistent then this is a circular piece of data on your part. Moran is a geneticist, why wouldn't he disagree with Mayr? To say Mayr is inconsistent is merely an insult evading the fact that neither you or Moran have actually showed an inconsistency - it is asserted. The evidence I have already posted, quoting Mayr, says the genetic explanation is important but it is not the definition of evolution. The quote goes on to say that evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies, and it tells us why. Look, I am not obligated to do your work, I do not have to read any article, RAZD, by telling me to read some blog, absent a clear chronology as to who said what and when they said it is called literature bluffing. You really need to support your assertion that Mayr is inconsistent. Mayr is not inconsistent: he acknowledged the importance of genetical explanation but said evolution is not defined at said level.
The point is that your genetic definition is not the only valid definition of evolution. I have supplied Mayr saying this specifically from the source you and possibly Moran quote mined, ignoring the text I pasted altogether. Usually, persons ignore what they cannot refute. This seems to be the case, here. I would surely appreciate a reply to my questions and points.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 1:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 166 of 212 (419967)
09-05-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
09-05-2007 1:23 PM


Re: back to the definition(s)
Look, I just read Moran's blog page or whatever you want to call it. He has his opinions, he merely asserts. I go with Mayr because his definition makes sense. Moran is biased because he has spoken up for the genetic definition and cannot go back. For him to assert Mayr is confused without showing any confusion is cheap and unconvincing.
The point is that I have a source for my view: Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr says evolution IS NOT a change in gene frequencies (2001:XV).
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 1:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 6:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 170 by Brad McFall, posted 09-05-2007 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 168 of 212 (419970)
09-05-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2007 6:11 PM


Re: back to the definition(s)
And he also says that it is, so which of him are you going to trust?
Or perhaps both statements would make more sense in context?
Yes, good point (which I have already made). In context, Mayr said in the preface of 2001 that genetical explanation is important and needs to be covered (and his book does this) but he then says that genetic definition is not the definition of evolution. He then gives the definition of evolution. What is the problem here?
Ray
PS: While I have you I do know that I made an error a while back when I said stasis in the fossil record corresponds to PE. I agree with what you said that the same corresponds to an alternating scenario.
RM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 171 of 212 (420141)
09-06-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
09-05-2007 7:45 PM


Re: back to the definition(s)
That is the quote and the reference citation.
And you failed to place quote marks around text.
Are you saying he was not one of the principal architects of the modern synthesis? DO a google on it and see what names you come up with.
No, you have said that. I know exactly who Mayr is and was. We know you are quite proficient in evolutionary theory, RAZD, but not in history of science. Mayr was not a chief architect; he was a principal player, still being quite young at the time in question.
Criticizing the use of wikipedia is useless if the same information is generally available and it is correct.
Then why use Britney Spears in the first place? Wikipedia is not a source; anyone with a computer can post anonymously, RAZD.
Ray originally writes:
What essay is being referred to here? Is it this one?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
How does blog writer know that Mayr wrote said book to reply to said essay?
RAZD responding writes:
Now you're just being confused. Note that "the blog writer" is a professor of molecular biology.
I am confused that is why I asked said question. Am I to believe that based on your non-answer that you are too? Can you please answer the question? I know who Moran is, that was not my question.
Is Moran saying that Mayr 2001 was a reply to his blog or Talk Origin page or both or something else and how does he know? Or is it just his judgement that Mayr 2001 was a reply to something HE WROTE?
No, actually it is shown by quoting Mayr from two different parts of the same book where he gives (or appears to give) two different definitions for "evolution" -- both are quoted so you can compare them yourself.
What we actually have is two quotes; one from the preface and one from page 157 under the heading "Conclusions." The preface quote, being in the preface, does not in any way diminish what is said. The preface is establishing context for the entire book. The preface quote said that genetical explanation is important BUT it is not the definition of evolution. The book follows this scheme: it covers the importance of genetics (page 157) but, like the preface says, it is not the definition of evolution. Mayr supplies the definition of evolution which you have evaded two times now - good job RAZD, and very objective.
That Mayr said that is not disputed. That he ALSO said the other definition is the point being made -- which it seems you are unable to refute and are attempting to ignore. If you don't believe this then check the book out at the library and read page 157.
"The other definition" (to use your words) is not a definition; it is explanation. Mayr provides one plain definition in the preface. All you have done is describe explanation as definition because you have already spoken up for that as a definition. By the way: I own a copy of Mayr 2001.
Again, the point is that the genetic definition is not the only definition, and I have the most respected scientist of the 20th century as a source.
But if you are going to argue that the quote from page 157 is not correct then you have to demonstrate it, and to do that you do need to go to the original source. You are the one claiming this is "quote mined" (ie quoted out of context) so it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that fact.
I have shown quote mine and you have evaded it like the plague. There is no definition on page 157. The definition and explanation of what the book is about is in the preface. Mayr said evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies. Page 157 does not contradict. Page 157 is simply part of the explanation of the importance of genetics said in the larger context of that NOT being the definition of evolution. Again, you evaded this explanation. What you cannot accept (or Moran) is the fact that there are persons even more qualified and respected than a blog writer with a degree. How cowardly of Moran to say the things he said (street insults) to a dead giant who cannot defend himself. Did Moran ever say these types of things when Mayr was alive?
He also says that it is. See page 157.
No he does not. Mayr plainly says that it is not in the preface.
You are just choosing the definition you prefer based on your opinion.
Where does page 157 say anything about definition? You are engaged in a classic quote mine and cannot admit. OTOH, the preface clearly says three things:
1. The genetic definition is not the definition of evolution.
2. The genetic definition is important.
3. The real definition of evolution.
Page 157 does not say anything about "a definition" but falls in the context of number #2 above. You and Moran are calling page 157 "a definition of evolution" and it does not say that in context.
Your cite is also from the preface rather than the actual body of the book, and so context is more difficult to evaluate.
Nonsense. Like I said: the preface sets the context. It's not a matter of opinion: the preface explains page 157 and so forth. You are deliberately engaged in equivocation.
Speaking of equivocation: here is an example in your next quote:
Looking in the body of the book for context you need to look at p 168 and this quote where he gives an alternate definition for evolution:
["]This approach was consistent with the modern definition of evolution as a change in adaptedness and diversity, rather than a change in gene frequencies, as suggested by the reductionists.["]
You are demonstrably confused. The quote above fully supports everything I have said and argued. What you have called a definition is not a definition but disproves your contention and disagrees with your genetic definition of evolution - SHEESH!
Finally, Mayr is not the only biologist that defines evolution, nor is he considered an ultimate authority, though his opinion is respected. One of the problems with the arguments from authority eh?
Nobody said Mayr is the only thus and such - you did. By dismissing having a source for ones view (= your 'argument from authority') you are demanding that your subjective viewpoint is factual and objective. Since you really believe Wikipedia is a source we are not surprised.
The only opinions that count as factual are scholarship. This is the system of Western nations since the inventing of the printing press. It does not matter what you or I or Mods or any other person says: unless you have a scholarly source for your view it is an unsupported opinion and not factual. It is also a major component of the Rules of this Forum.
But the point being discussed here is that it is a valid definition of evolution, one that is also supported by Mayr (as well as other authorities).
No, Mayr has said that it is not. How much more clearer can it be? You are straight out lying to the Forum: Mayr said evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. Page 157 says nothing about definition: you and Moran have added that claim to the text.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 7:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 2:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 172 of 212 (420145)
09-06-2007 12:30 PM


Ernst Mayr, writing critically in the context of the way evolution is presented and explained in literature:
quote:
"....the principles of genetics must be thoroughly explained....[however]....most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by 'upward' reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not 'a change in gene frequencies.' The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principal object of selection, and the population...." (What Evolution Is, 2001:XIV).
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : to remove large font

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 09-06-2007 1:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 175 of 212 (420190)
09-06-2007 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AdminNosy
09-06-2007 1:28 PM


Re: It is not necessary to yell
I will shrink your font for you. Don't do that too often ok?
I consider large font to be emphasis attempting to obtain the notice of eyes that appear blind. But since you say that it is yelling (and thus unacceptable) I will refrain.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AdminNosy, posted 09-06-2007 1:28 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 176 of 212 (420196)
09-06-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
09-06-2007 2:31 PM


Re: back to the definition(s)
RAZD writes:
I have absolutely no idea where you get this bizarre concept from Ray. Moran wrote the article and quoted Mayr in it -- so how could the book quoted in the article be written as a response to the article that quotes the book?
Sandwalk: What Is Evolution?
"Saturday, January 13, 2007
The Gene Centrist Objection
Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay."
RAZD: my question is: what essay is Moran talking about in the above quote? Do you or do you not know?
Again, when Moran says "this essay" - what essay is he talking about? I interpret this comment by Moran to be talking about "The Gene Centrist Objection."
If true, then even Moran agrees that Mayr was against evolution being defined at the genetical level.
Notice that you claimed I had "quote mined" the definition on page 157 -- that means misrepresenting what was said out of context.
Negative.
I did not say that you quote mined "the definition" on page 157 since what is written on page 157 and the description of that text to be "a definition" (in your unsubstantiated view) is what we are in disagreement over.
I have repeatedly said and strenuously objected to you calling the quote from page 157 "a definition."
Where do you get the idea that it is a definition when nothing written indicates that it is a definition? This is rhetorical. In the preface Mayr specifically says genetic centrist is not the definition and something else is.
Your tactic, pursued to avoid having to admit that you are wrong, is to assume and presuppose that page 157 is a definition when it is not and you refuse to explain why you call it a definition while avoiding the preface.
Now, please point out where he contradicts evolution as "genetic change from generation to generation in populations" anywhere in that quoted material, for that is your claim when you say I quote-mined.
Comment dishonestly presupposes that I am arguing against something said by Mayr. He explains evidence and the same is not a definition. His definition is in the Preface. Mayr has already said evolution is not a change in gene frequencies in the context of saying that a change in gene frequencies is not the definition of evolution (see Preface).
It does not matter what Mayr says about genetics in his book after the preface. The preface clearly says genetics is important but it is not the definition of evolution. Again, you are calling certain texts after the Preface "a definition" arbitrarily and evading my rebuttals.
RAZD writes:
Show me where in that material he says this is not evolution, Ray, or acknowledge that this is an accurate and correct quote of the material and there is not misrepresentations of what Mayr said on that page.
Misrepresentation.
NOBODY (Mayr or I) has said "this is not evolution" since we are talking about the definition of evolution and not evidence for evolution. Since Mayr specifically said that a change in gene frequencies is not the definition of evolution you cannot sneak around his book and pick passages that support the geneticist view and also say Mayr supports your view. All the passages in Mayr 2001 that say evolution is thus and such (genetic friendly) are written in the context of what is said in the Preface, AND, more importantly, said passages are NOT a definition; they are explanatory exegesis. You are calling these select passages a definition while avoiding the Preface which gives a contrary definition.
The overall point: you have no support from Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr is any of your attempts to define evolution at the genetic level.
No Ray, what I have said is that Mayr say two contradictory things about what evolution is, and that to claim that only one or the other of them applies is false and misrepresents the reality: that is what you are doing.
You have said that Mayr contradicts, but that is not true. He only "contradicts" if you ignore the Preface and arbitrarily label certain passages definitions when they are not in view of the Preface.
Since we went through this same type of nonsense in the "Definition of ToE" topic I am not the least bit surprised to see you attempt such brazen misrepresentations again.
If I was a Moderator I would nail you to a cross in the name of decency.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 2:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Brad McFall, posted 09-06-2007 8:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 10:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 186 of 212 (420306)
09-07-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
09-06-2007 10:05 PM


The Integrity of an Atheist-evolutionist (who hides behind a deist shell)
Content hidden by Adminmodulous to avoid any temptation of others to reply. The content is not deleted and can be viewed by clicking the peek button.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Content hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2007 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AdminModulous, posted 09-07-2007 12:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 09-07-2007 1:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 189 of 212 (420388)
09-07-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AdminModulous
09-07-2007 12:50 PM


Objective persons know that you and RAZD censored (= hid) my post because the truth hurts.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AdminModulous, posted 09-07-2007 12:50 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2007 5:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2007 5:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 2:50 PM Cold Foreign Object 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