|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
stile writes:
No. Bertot, the only thing that EVER takes an idea out of the realm of theoretical non-existence and into the realm of "very real" reality is verifiable, objective evidence. Being "based against objective, verifiable realities" is not enough. Stile ever principle is based against objective, verfiable evidence. A concept or a thought or an idea, is not real or demonstratale unless it applies to the real world. Your play on words will not assist your efforts here. The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not. Question; How do you think that design or creation is and became one of only two possibilites if it is not based in reality.Please answer that question. Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point. You in a hopeless situation here Stile. Physical reality and not imagination only leave us with two possibilites Stile, not our imagination. Both of which are plausible at this point until we start to look at entropy and the such like. Conversely, if design or creation is not based in verifable reality,being only one of only two posibilites,then neither is the conclusion that the univrese APPEARS to be a product of itself, which claims also to be based in reality and on verifiable principles You state:The physical reality we exist within shows us that almost everything that exists is self constructed. Your principle here is nonsesical given you own admissions about what establishes verfiable solutions and possibilities and the fact that its premise follows the same of only two logical possibilities against physical realites. How did reality decide or leave us with only two logical solutions or possibilities? Did I just imagine design the same way you imagine self constructed, I doubt it. I would say they both have evidence in reality. I defy you demonstrate it otherwise. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion.
Actually you have answered your own question. The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. If the universe atually exists and it has laws it follows, that is real, therefore the conclusion that it may have very well have been designed IS AS REAL. If as you suggest "real possibilittes have some form of verifiable evidence, that points to them as being possibilities, then the phisical universe certainly falls within that category. Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted. Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements? First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer". I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...? Which is it...?
What position are you searching for verfiale evidence for, for design or the existence of God. You are the one that keeps trying to slip god in, as with your "designer" comment above.
If for design, it should be wrapped up in the only two real possibilities against the physical reality of the universe and its laws. Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what?
If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions. But I thought you said we weren't looking for the "designer"(god)...? Again, you contradict yourself. If it's design, then theoretically it can be possible. If it's the design(er) then absolutely not, not in any way. The design(er) would violate our known reality. AND no matter how much you try to dodge this question, who created the designer? From your other post:
How can a very well thought out and well delivered joke such as mine always are, offend, a dirty and no talent comedian, ha ha. I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming!
Rodeny Dangerfield you not boy. Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead.
You know, "That lady is not two-faced, if she were she wouldnt wear that one", "Call me when you have no class", Now thats comedy feakshow. Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Bertot writes: If the physical universe (reality) and its laws exist, then it is obious that this serves as verfiable evidence of the real possibility of a designer, even if you dont like its conclusions. In order for such a sentence to seem true (even on the surface) to anyone, it requires a defintion of "real" (where you say "real possibility") that has nothing to do with describing the truth about the universe we live in. The definition of "real" here would be more in line with "existing in theoretical imagination." Our imagination is "real." And every idea within our imagination is "real." But not every idea in our imagination actually describes the truth about the universe we live in. Most of those ideas are only "real" as they exist theoretically within our imagination. Most of them are simply wrong or wishful thinking when concering the truth of the universe we live in. Your idea of Design is indistinguishable from these types of theoretical, imaginary thoughts. You are equivocating. And you are equivocating in a way that is irrational, delusional, and almost insane if you're honestly trying to talk about the truth regarding our topic.
The only two possibilites that do exists against reality are they were it was created or it was not. You are equivocating.Correct -> both possibilities exist "as possibilites." Incorrect, both possibilites describe the truth of the universe we live in. There are "very real possibilities" like not being created.There are "only theoretical" possibilities that do not describe the truth of the universe we live in, like being created. Stop equivocating.
Reality and the aspects of it are what make it real and not theoretical, design that is, not God at this point. You are equivocating again. Design is "real" in the sense that it exists as "a" possibility.Design is not "real" in the sense that it exists as "a very real" possibility for the truth about our universe. All "very real" possibilities about the truth of our universe contain verifiable, objective evidence. Design does not have this. Design is, therefore, not a "very real" possibility, but it is like the rest of the possibilities that exist only in our imagination and have nothing to do with the truth about our universe. You continue to equivocate. You continue to demand that you must be taken seriously. You continue to say that it is obvious and easy. Yet you're unable to show such. And you are unable to even provide a scrap of verifiable, objective evidence that so much as points in the direction of your idea. Such confusion is generally compartmentalized into the areas of irrationality, delusion and insanity. But please go on, I'm sure many people are extremely interested in seeing what you're going to try next.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
I know I referred you all over to ID Forum to discuss ID, so this is a distinct improvement. I referred you to this particular post to as a possible place to discuss the design-designer issue.
The present area of discussion is a little...ahem...post-modern, can we get a bit of focus? It certainly seems like you are all very keen to debate - and I don't want to stop you. Maybe someone wants to make some sense out of the ideas that have cropped up here and either take them elsewhere or propose a new topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Onifre writes:
Yes, it is still theoretical because you have no way of knowing if the "reality" you percieve is actually real. When you look at anything you don't see atoms or subatomic particles, their existance would be unknown to you, so how can you say for sure that you understand what you perceive to be the actual fundamental functions of the universe? You can't, hence it is a theoretical conclusion. Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself. Please go to Youtube and view the Spaceballs clip, "When will then be now", its makes about as much sense as your above comment, but atleast they know thiers is an attempt at comedy. I will not acknowledge foolish nonesense.
Would you care to deal with these contradictory statements? First you say we are not looking for god, just "design". Then you say there is nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a "designer". I thought you said we weren't looking for the designer(god)...? Which is it...? Your a knothead arent you boy? The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially. The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth. The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
Lets stick with design then. First, what "laws" are you talking about that aren't the reactions of interactions with other things? Be specific. Second, designed for what? Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result, then moving to the next is DESIGN knothead. The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally. I am not going to answer the second question you asked, its stupid.
I think you missed the point about the jokes being lame, not funny and hacky. I'm only offended at your shitty attempts to be humorous. And, if you consider me a comedian you established that I have a talent, whether you enjoy it or not. Seems like the contradictions keep on coming! I guess your right, I was worng here, Used Car salesmen and Politicians also have a talent, if we are going to go by their namesake, excuse me comedian. You really should try and leave your comedy out of your attempts to make arguments, it gets inthe way of you making sense.
Thats a good thing 'cause he's fucking dead. Uh oh, I think you walked right into that one. Thats the point, even dead he is funnier and makes more sense than yourself. Son if you want to adlib with a master such as myself, you should find some descent material. Hawkeye Pierce, your not.
Yeah in the Catskills during the 50's. It's 2009 you lame ass, get with the times pops. How ironic you should make such a comment. Yesterday I was going down the road listening to Radio Runs, Jack Benny and those guys, thinking why does it have to deteriorate to you filthy, no class, no talent bums. Everything has to be campared to the dirty or the filthy today or its not funny and ofcurse thats because they have no imagination or talent to do otherwise. Perhaps you should pull out thier tapes and learn from the masters.BTW, have a nice day. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Stile I will try and get to your latest post during the course of the day.
D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The next impolite and unnecessary remark will get a days suspension!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Right back where we started from, back to the insanity of questioing reality itself I did not question reality I questioned your perception of it. Since nothing can be declaired as absolute, it will remain theorietical. If you are going to muse philosophically about reality you must understand certain rules about doing that.
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer, either are possible until you get to the laws of entropy or the existence of something out of nothing principle, or matter that appears to be finite in its character sustaining and bringing itself into exsistence itself principle. Design however, by itself could be either, or, on the surface. The theist however, is warrented in conclusing a DESIGNER initially. The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth. The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. Its simply that the theist is more than justified in drwing such conclusions and is in no way delusional or mystical as Dawkins and others would suggest. He simply an agry little man with an agenda. Besides that he is a really poor on the spot debater.
None of this was an answer for your contradictions in the other post. You said: Bertot writes: The reality we are looking for at present is not God, only design. Followed by: Bertot writes: Nothing musive, unwarrented, theoretical or imaginary about a designer, as you have now fully admitted. Stile did not admit anything about a "design(er)", he said theoretical there was a possibility for "design", period. You added "design(er)" to it. Even, like you said, if you proved things were designed, the design(er) would still be imaginative and unwarrented and theoretical because, as you say, design can still be caused by natural process. Would you like to deal with those contradicting statements above or not?
Reactions of interactions to bring about a specific SAME consistent result Same results no matter what?! Care to think that through carefully? (hint: think QM) And could you be specific...please?
Just a few more points if you should be so kind as to indulge me:
The design principle could be a result of natural prossess as well as a designer Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally?
The obvious design in nature and the design argument are not the all in all for belief in God or a designer, it simply coorborates what we already know through the argument from existence itself and the laws that nature follows and the fact that it appears tobe contiengent on other things, so on and so forth. I think the point we are all making against you is that there is NO obvious design in nature. You have not shown were design is. All we see is adaptive organisms changing as per their enviromental needs. Where do you see design?
The point here is, not that you or I can demonstrate this beyond any doubt, there is always doubt, no matter the weight of evidence. But you do not doubt that gravity exists, or atoms, or gases, or electromegnetic waves, etc. Why do we place doubt on design? Could it be that it is impossible to show?
The reactions of a designed motor vehicle with its other parts constituting interactions is design whether someone put it togoether or it happened naturally. A motor is designed for a specific purpose. It does not adapt to different environments. It does not alter it's functions to suit new conditions. It serves one specific purpose. It clearly is designed with one application in mind. Could you say the same about organisms who have evolved for 3.5 billion years, who have gone through thousands of morphological changes, who have continously been driven to evolve by a randomly changing environment? What specific purpose were organisms designed for? To stay alive at all cost? Is that it? Is that what you mean by design? How could you point to design specifics when the organism is constantly changing? Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The current discussion in this thread should probably move to another thread. Possibilities are:
This thread addresses the infinite regress faced by those who believe that complexity requires a designer but ignore that this designer requires an even more complex designer who himself requires an even more complex designer... I'd also like to note that not only is the evidence for design or for the designer not the topic, but the inadequacy of fellow debaters is never on topic in any discussion. Please focus on the position, not the person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Stile writes: In order for such a sentence to seem true (even on the surface) to anyone, it requires a defintion of "real" (where you say "real possibility") that has nothing to do with describing the truth about the universe we live in. The definition of "real" here would be more in line with "existing in theoretical imagination." Our imagination is "real." And every idea within our imagination is "real." But not every idea in our imagination actually describes the truth about the universe we live in. Most of those ideas are only "real" as they exist theoretically within our imagination. Most of them are simply wrong or wishful thinking when concering the truth of the universe we live in. Your idea of Design is indistinguishable from these types of theoretical, imaginary thoughts. Besides stating the obvious in a very verbose manner, actually you have got it exacally BACKWARDS. Our imaginations are in no way real. Concepts thoughts or ideas only become real or demonstratable when compared against a verfiable physical reality, they exhibit certain characteristics which coorbortate very real possibities and conclusions from our deductive reasoning processes. When I conduct an experiment iin the physical world, the results of that experiment will corroborate my conclusions or it will not.
You are equivocating. Correct -> both possibilities exist "as possibilites." Incorrect, both possibilites describe the truth of the universe we live in. Since I did not say what you are implying in the second part here, I would not be equivocating. Since both exist as very possibilites, (intitally), it is therefore rational and acceptable to believe in one of those possibilites.
There are "very real possibilities" like not being created. There are "only theoretical" possibilities that do not describe the truth of the universe we live in, like being created. Your playing with words and concepts will not assist you cause. Since the truth of the universe is also that it could have been created or designed, against obvious design and others initial arguments to sustain the design argument, it therefore describes a TRUTH that is very real. Either both of your above principles apply to both created or not, or they do not. You cant have it both ways. If theoretical applies to design, then it applies to self-constructed, self-existent, beause there is no way you can demonstrate it is a produc of itself. Now, do you wish to contend that your imaginations for the origins of the existence of the universe are VERY REAL, if so how would you do this? If very real applies to not designed, it would apply to designed. In other words I am not equivocating, but if I am so are you.
All "very real" possibilities about the truth of our universe contain verifiable, objective evidence. Design does not have this. Design is, therefore, not a "very real" possibility, but it is like the rest of the possibilities that exist only in our imagination and have nothing to do with the truth about our universe. Design is a part of reality whether it is purposely designed or is naturally designed, it is something you can touch, see and observe. Call it Function or design, whichever you like, but it is definitaley a part of reality, therefore a real possibility. Playing with words does not change that which is real and observable.
You continue to equivocate. You continue to demand that you must be taken seriously. You continue to say that it is obvious and easy. Yet you're unable to show such. And you are unable to even provide a scrap of verifiable, objective evidence that so much as points in the direction of your idea. Such confusion is generally compartmentalized into the areas of irrationality, delusion and insanity. Here you use the words YOU or YOURS seven times in the above quote. My friend it is not ME it is reality and that which is observable and demonstratable. It is reality and its makeup that DEMONSTRATES these principles which I am advocating, I dont need to do anything. It is YOU that is avoiding the obvious.
But please go on, I'm sure many people are extremely interested in seeing what you're going to try next. Thank you I will. As a matter of fact I am now off to Onifre's latest blatthering. D Bertot Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic posts hidden - two Admin warnings should have been enough
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Onifre writes:
D BertotI did not question reality I questioned your perception of it. Since nothing can be declaired as absolute, it will remain theorietical. Uh, Yes you did. I would advice you to go back and read that quote. While you might have questioned my perception, you also questioned reality itself and I believe you did it again in the above qupote.
If you are going to muse philosophically about reality you must understand certain rules about doing that. Exacally. And one major way to muse about it, is to imagine that it is not real or absolute in character, which allows you to come to such conclusions as, finite things always existed, they created themselves and its clear function or design is a product of itself. I totally agree with you.
None of this was an answer for your contradictions in the other post. Since there was no contradiction in the first place, yes it was a valid response to the question you asked.
Stile did not admit anything about a "design(er)", he said theoretical there was a possibility for "design", period. You added "design(er)" to it. Even, like you said, if you proved things were designed, the design(er) would still be imaginative and unwarrented and theoretical because, as you say, design can still be caused by natural process. Would you like to deal with those contradicting statements above or not? Whoa son, slow down, you minds in a tizzy running wild here. Yes Stile did admit to a designer when he answered yes to the question of possibility. Throwing words at reality like theoretical do not change reality. As I pointed out, you cannot have it both ways. It is not reasonable to say that all in the universe points to it being a product of itself, given other facts and call this a real possibility, then turn around and say design is only a theoretical possibility, such statements make no sense. Either both are real possibilities or both or theoretical. However, it doesnt matter (no pun intended), because WORDS dont change reality, they only change the argument for the sake of argument. Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding.
And could you be specific...please? Example:Does the Earth orbit the Sun because it was "designed" to do so, or is it doing so because matter found itself trapped in an orbit around the Sun? Was the Earth "designed" for life, or did life arrise due to the Earth being at the precise distance from it's host Sun? Was the Earth "designed" to be this far from the Sun, or is it the result of the Earths mass? Was the Sun "designed" at that specific size so that it would go Red Giant and consume the Earth in the process ending all life, or is it's size the result of it's core mass/energy? Just a few more points if you should be so kind as to indulge me: Come on Onifre, you can do better than this, so I may conclude from your above statements that you believe there is DEFINATELY design in the universe, or would that require me to twist your words to fit my own thinking, as you do mine.Secondly, what part of the statement where I said that, design was not the initial way or all in all to estalish that a desinger exists, to believe in design in nature. Therefore, it would be necessary to establish or consider other preliminary factors before even coming to the above conclusion about a designer. On e approaches design after one believes correctly that finite matter that is contiegent on something else, could not be a product of itself. Oh yeah I forgot, that only theoretical correct, I only imagined the finite character of the universe. Therefore they were DESIGNED to operate in the exact MINUTNESS AND DETAIL, that allows life to exist in the universe, for the purpose which they were intended and created. I hope this answers your question, because frankly I dont see where you are going with it.
Could you give a brief explanation of what the "design principle" is? And how would you show design happened naturally? I already did:Bertot writes: Secondly, I dont know where you thought I said an designer would be imaginative. Thirdly, my contention that design could be a natural process, was only on the bases if one considered the universe eternal in character and a product of itself in he first place. In other words one would have to demonstrate that these are true, then of course one could conclude the second, premise. However, your task is impossible since you cannot even demonstrate the first premise. Design and a designer are therefore a very real possibility, Stile's word play notwithstanding. In other words my statement about it happening naturally is based on a presumption in the first place.
I think the point we are all making against you is that there is NO obvious design in nature. You have not shown were design is. All we see is adaptive organisms changing as per their enviromental needs. Where do you see design? Now your catching on son, the design is there before one even gets to the design you observe in nature. The design in nature only corroborates facts that are demonstratable by the nature of the universe itself. Design is secondary to other facts. design corroborates existing facts. However, I doubt that anyone that cannot see the minute detail and design in the "adaptive organisms changing as per thier enviormental needs", will see anything else that makes much sense. Again disagreeing with design is not the same as demonstrating that it is not observable or real. If it operates or FUNCTIONS in a orderly and logical fashion, then something or someone is doing something that allows life to exist. Something or some logical orderly process is allowing you and me to use these very fine instruments to type out these very logical and orderly arguments, especially in my case.
A motor is designed for a specific purpose. It does not adapt to different environments. It does not alter it's functions to suit new conditions. It serves one specific purpose. It clearly is designed with one application in mind. Could you say the same about organisms who have evolved for 3.5 billion years, who have gone through thousands of morphological changes, who have continously been driven to evolve by a randomly changing environment? What specific purpose were organisms designed for? To stay alive at all cost? Is that it? Is that what you mean by design? How could you point to design specifics when the organism is constantly changing? Onifre writes:"It does not alter its functions to suit new enviornments" Really thats interesting. So when your driving down the road and the wipers to the vehicle come on AUTOMATICALLY, when it starts to rain, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When you switch to 4 wheel drive as in the case of my Lexus, would you say the designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? When the air bag comes out when you hit a tree, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT its enviornment?When the vehicle does anything ATUOMATICALLY without your instructions, would you say its designer allowed it to ADAPT to its enviornment? Now, if you want to argue that there is still a driver behind the seat I would remind you of drones and self guided missles, ICBMs, which I am sure you liberal types are oppossed to in the first place. Organisms change because they were designed to do so in the first place, along with the enviornment they exist. They have within them the design that first allows thier orderly existence then the mechanisms to ADAPT to change. Any other questions
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic post hidden, press peek to see it, you may take it to a PNT or some other topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Admin writes:
Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions. Bertot - and anybody else too - read the admin messages that have been recently posted in this thread. Failure to do so will result in suspensions. I dont mind moving it to another topic or thread, I however am not experienced enough in you proceedures to suggest where or whatever. I would request that maybe you bring my last two posts to Stile and Onfire out of hiding into another thread area, or whatever. Just a thought. Or perhaps you could move all the relevant posts of late by myself, Onifre, Stile and others from that thread to another, so everyone can keep up with where we are at, is that possible. How about the one with only 21 posts to its name, that would give us plenty time, eh?D Bertot D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Message 144 provides you with some suggestions, feel free to take a look at those threads and see if the ideas you want to post about work in any of them.
Unfortunately, I am not able to take your posts and move them to any of those threads...instead of copy/pasting them you might want to collate your general ideas and just post them as a new general reply in one of the suggested threads or post a new topic as you see fit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Can I, since I saved them in Word, copy and Paste, the last two, and post them to the thread with only 21 posts?
D Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024