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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smelling The Coffee: 2010
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 270 (541539)
01-04-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
01-01-2010 7:11 AM


What are some of the domestic problems that if left unsolved will only get worse and, in time, do as much as bring the country down?
Critical infrastructure is a big one. The roadways in many areas are pathetic for how much taxes the population pays.
The National Debt. A few years ago, I had around five credit cards and found them creeping steadily higher. On paper, I had the ability and the means to continue paying them, but did not pay attention to the larger and larger percentage of interest and smaller and smaller percentage of principal that was getting paid. Soon, they overwhelmed me. The same will happen, I fear, with our national debt. Will the day come when every penny of taxes collected by the U.S. be used to pay only the interest payment on the growing debt? Will we as a country default?
Well, the first problem is that our fiat currency creates inflation. Revamping the economic system is simply a must. But more immediately government spending has to be put in check, because clearly it has not served us well. With Obama-Care looming on the horizon, which will cost trillions of dollars that we don't have, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Western Nations is getting older, even as we struggle with higher and higher debt repayments. Will there be a tipping point? Will the monopoly of power that the Western Nations hold come tumbling down?
All empires fall eventually and it almost always comes from within due to a cascading effect. Obviously the idea is to delay that eventuality for as long as possible. Some empires were better at it than others. The Roman Empire lasted a long, long time in comparison to others.
Will terrorism ever go away?
Just look at history to serve as a guide. There has always been some form of terror so, no, it will never completely go away.
In order to fix the problem, must we be the ones to fix it?
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." -- Thomas Jefferson
This is a truism that often hasn't happened as one generation passes the buck on to their children and grandchildren. It is therefore incumbent upon you and I not to fail for the next generation.
Can we fix it, given our own challenges?
Yes, where there is a will there is a way. But we must be smart about it and not procrastinate.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 01-01-2010 7:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 270 (541540)
01-04-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 9:53 AM


Correlations?
Significantly, the more secularly educated we become as a nation, the less freedom we enjoy, the more crime we have, the more heart disease, obesity and cancer we have, the more social problems, suicide, etc we have.
Any chance that some of those might be correlated with greatly increasing population, the spread of wealth to the middle class, and a doubling of our lifespans?
Any chance at all?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 9:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 33 of 270 (541541)
01-04-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
01-04-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
I agree with those who say that education is not based on belief but on logic, reason, and reality. Am I wrong?
You say "I agree" That means you believe.
I am sorry Phat but everything is based on belief there is no such thing as non belief.
Mankind became as God knowing good and evil and every since then mankind has made choices based upon what he/she believes to be good or evil.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 01-04-2010 10:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 270 (541544)
01-04-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
01-04-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Phat writes:
So in a few sentences, explain the difference between secular education and christian education.
I agree with those who say that education is not based on belief but on logic, reason, and reality. Am I wrong?
Hi Phat.
1. Our nation never had Christian education, perse. It had wholistic education including freedom of religion for all aspects of life, and government involved activity such as the branches of government, education, and military etc.
The nature of a republic is that the voters determine who represents them who in turn implement what is taught. In recent decades, secularist minded leaders have been elected by the voters of the republic. Consequently the educational agenda has become more secularistic.
The observed reality relative to your OP and message four, i.e. your notion that more education is the solution, happens to be that the more secularist and hostile to religion the education and all aspects of life in America have become, the more complex and extensive the problems in America become. Thus, more of secularist direction we go, the more and the greater problems will become as per Occam's Razor.
2. You said "logic and science," to which I have responded.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 01-04-2010 10:11 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2010 11:38 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 151 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2010 9:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 270 (541545)
01-04-2010 11:31 AM


I see extremely ignorant comments coming from both sides of the isle. I also see a lot of blameshifting going on as if the world's ills were as simple as religion versus secularism. Both are paranoid and both are delusional.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 5:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 270 (541546)
01-04-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Its Education, Stupid
Buzsaw, religion and secular education has nothing to do with one another in this republic. The only time religion should play a role in school is during religious courses or the semenary. It is the same thing as keeping mathematics and language, science, social science, etc separate. They just have nothing to do with the other. 2 X 2 doesn't = protoplasm and the square root of 30 does not = Habbukuk the minor prophet.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 11:26 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 6:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 37 of 270 (541551)
01-04-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 12:31 AM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Buz, still hiding out in your fool's paradise I see.
Hi Granny. I thought you were above this nonsense.
And I thought you were above lying for Jesus. Actually that's not true; I knew you were going to engage in more dishonesty, as did everyone else apparently.
First you cite a country engaged in war between two factions
Wrong. You are revealing the depths of your ignorance.
quote:
Since 1987, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, has waged an insurgency in northern Uganda, using camps in southern Sudan as bases for attacks on government forces and civilians. In 2005, a significant LRA force moved from southern Sudan to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it remains. The LRA’s tactics include murder, looting, burning houses, torture, mutilation, and abduction of children for the purposes of forced conscription, labor, and sexual servitude. The LRA is on the U.S. Terrorist Exclusion List.
Source; We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State
The US State Department categorises the LRA as terrorists. Are you saying that they are wrong? That kidnapping children and forcing them to murder their own parents before swearing (on a Bible) loyalty to the LRA is somehow not terrorism?
Uganda is not at war. They are fighting an anti-terrorist campaign across three nations. How this fails to count as international terrorism is beyond me.
Because there happened to be a couple of non-fundamentalist (as per the Christian book, the NT) nutcases.
Apart from the fact that the above is not a complete sentence, you seem to be taking refuge in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Do you really imagine that's going to impress me? Or anybody? Grow up man. Here are the words of one of the LRA leaders, Vincent Otti;
quote:
"Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the [biblical] Ten Commandments of God. That is true — because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this."
I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but I think that man is a Christian. Oh, he's got an eccentric interpretation of scripture all right, but he is just as keen on is Bible as you are Buz.
If you people care to get rational we can move on. Phat was alluding to a global problem which applied to fundamentals of religion, i.e. religious fundamentalists which pose a problem on the planet.
Is Uganda not on the same planet you live on? Does your awareness stop at the shores of Africa? Or do you just not care when African kids are raped, tortured and forced to kill their own parents?
I cited Islam as the only GLOBAL violent religious fundamentalist threat.
And Onifre, myself and others have demonstrated that you were wrong. Stop flapping about and admit that there are many Christian terror groups or continue equivocating and dropping fallacies. Your choice.
I agree that Islam is the biggest terror threat. It would be crazy to deny that. The only problem is that you seem to want to live in a fantasy world where Christians do no wrong (and those who do wrong are not Chrsitians, even when they say they are) and that is just a comforting delusion on your part.
You don't have to go back to May 09 to dig up something on this source of terrorism.
Moving those goalposts again Buz?
Buzsaw writes:
Hi Onifre. Can you cite any mainstream media, including Fox which has covered any of the stuff you cited to any extent in the past six months or year?
I got you one at just over six months, now you want one yesterday? Very poor form Buz.
We are agreed that Islam is the worst offender when it comes to religiously inspired terrorism, by a wide margin. What is not agreed is your pathetic delusion that Christians are somehow whiter than white. I agree with you that saying "religion is responsible for terrorism" is over-simplifying matters. Islam must be singled out for special attention, as by far the worst offender, but brushing Christian terror groups under the carpet doesn't help matters either. In fact, it only serves to further isolate Muslims, who will be quick to spot the hypocrisy.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 12:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 1:19 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 38 of 270 (541556)
01-04-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Granny Magda
01-04-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
I'm just going to go out on a limb here, but I think that man is a Christian. Oh, he's got an eccentric interpretation of scripture all right, but he is just as keen on is Bible as you are Buz.
Granny are you serious?
What makes that man a Christian?
The Bible Writers writes:
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The Greek word transliterated Christianos which means 1) Christian, a follower of Christ. Only appears in these 3 verses in the Bible.
In Acts the people were living a life like Christ and because of that they were called Christians.
Now this man of the LRA what teachings of Christ or what part of the life of Christ is he living like for you to determine he is a Christian, a Christ follower?
So just for clarification and to clear up my ignorance would you tell me what a Christian is?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2010 12:34 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2010 1:34 PM ICANT has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 39 of 270 (541562)
01-04-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
01-04-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi ICANT,
What makes that man a Christian?
Go back and read his comments again. He is extoling the value of the Ten commandments in a style almost indistinguishable from that of American Christian fundies.
He claims to be a Christian and, with no ironclad way of determining who is a "true" Christian and who is not, we are left with little option but to take his word for it. I am as dubious as you are as to any claim that the LRA are a true reflection of Christ's teachings (or those of whoever wrote his lines), but the fact remains that they are professed Christians. Unless you are God himself, you have no way of telling whether they true Christians or not.
The Greek word transliterated Christianos which means 1) Christian, a follower of Christ. Only appears in these 3 verses in the Bible.
As it happens, I'm defining "Christian" as per its normal use in the English language. You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to make the actions of your fellow religionists more palatable.
So just for clarification and to clear up my ignorance would you tell me what a Christian is?
Clearing up your ignorance would take a lifetime and I don't have any intention of trying.
Perhpas you and Buz would like to consider the oft heard objections of Muslims, when Islamic terror is mentioned; "Oh, they're not real Muslims! Islam is a religion of peace!", etc, etc.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 1:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 2:23 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 270 (541566)
01-04-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Granny Magda
01-04-2010 1:34 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Granny,
Granny Magda writes:
He claims to be a Christian and, with no ironclad way of determining who is a "true" Christian and who is not, we are left with little option but to take his word for it.
If I claim to be a brain surgeon would have an ironclad way of determining if I am a true brain surgeon?
If I can't produce then I am not a true brain surgeon.
Can you tell if an orange tree is a true orange tree?
Sure you can all you have to do is examine the fruit the tree produces.
Can you tell if a person is a Christian or not?
Sure you can all you have to do is examine the fruit they produce. If they are living a life like Christ did then they are Christians.
BTW I haven't met one yet, and I sure don't claim to be one, although I am trying every day to get closer to being one.
Granny Magda writes:
As it happens, I'm defining "Christian" as per its normal use in the English language. You don't get to redefine the meaning of words to make the actions of your fellow religionists more palatable.
So where do you and moderns get the authority to redefine the meaning of the original 2,000 year old word?
If you are going to use a word that was used in the Bible you need to use the meaning of the word when the Bible was written. Not what you think it means today.
Anyone that does not fit the description of what the word used in Acts and by Peter means is not a Christian.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2010 1:34 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Granny Magda, posted 01-04-2010 5:06 PM ICANT has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 41 of 270 (541577)
01-04-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
01-03-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Hi Onifre. Can you cite any mainstream media, including Fox which has covered any of the stuff you cited to any extent in the past six months or year? Mmm, must be it's not so prevalent. Like none of this is happening on a daily basis as is the case with Islam.
The violence in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants was, in fact, extremely bloody and extremely common until very recently.
American media isn't very good with anything that doesn't directly concern Americans. They'll cover Britney Spears shaving her head for a solid week, but you'll be lucky if you get more than 10 minutes in a month devoted to genocide in Darfur, or terrorist revolutionaries in South America.
It's not just Fox. It's what passes for "journalism" in America today - Fox is just one of the worst for manufacturing extreme and blatant bias in their coverage and talk shows. It's all about ratings, not importance. You should know that.
Btw, communism is one way athiestic and secularistic sheeple could ban and restrict religion. Simply imprison and slaughter promoters of religion. They slaughtered over a hundred million last century, not to mention the scores of millions of persecuted, imprisoned and empoverished. It's ongoing in places like China Laos, N Vietnam and Cuba this century.
Outlawing all religion is no different from outlawing all but one religion.
And communism by itself does not require the banning of religion. The most prevalent communist countries did it to increase the influence of the state and diminish outside loyalties, but communism is simply a form of economics. The totalitarian aspects are not necessary components; one could in principle have a democratic communist state with full freedom of religion. We just haven't seen a nation like that appear yet, because totalitarianism is tempting for revolutionary leaders. power corrupts, and all that.
Lastly, the most persecuted religion, globally, and always has been, which happens to be fundamentalist evangelical Christianity happens to be the persecuted; not the persecutors.
That's a pretty funny statement. The fact is, most people are very good at persecuting anything that deviates from the majority. It's basic tribalism - "you're not one of us." Religion just functions to give divine approval for the persecution, whether the persecutors are Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, or anything else.
Anyone who lives in a region where their own beliefs represent a minority that is opposed to the majority is likely to be persecuted in some way. The extremity of the persecution depends less on the specific belief system and more on the people. Fundamentalist Christians have been more than willing to participate in "fag drags" and other such monstrous acts, as well as the highly-fundamentalist Militia movement that spawned Timothy McVeigh.
Psychopaths like McVeigh and bin Laden exist in nearly every belief system. They just use the religious wrappings to increase their numbers and support. If bin Laden were a Christian, he'd probably be one of the assholes suggesting the US should just nuke Mecca.
Perhaps the real solution to make the planet more peaceful is for the lord and christ Jesus, champion of fundamentalist Christians, who is prophesied to come to rule and reign on the planet at Jerusalem, to come soon. YES!
And throw all the infidels into the lake of fire. How nice - peace through the murder and eternal torture of all dissidents.
Perhaps the route to peace comes instead from recognizing that we're never all going to agree on everything, and that we should just accept that and live and let live. You know, maybe show just a little respect to others.
For instance, Buz, I think you're a pretty giant asshole for some of your beliefs, but I respect you enough to recognize your right to have beliefs that I find despicable. And all I ask is the same in return. You and I haven't tried to blow each other up lately. Maybe if everyone in the world thought just a little more on those lines, of tolerance (even if grudging) rather than violence and hatred, we'd be in less of a mess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2010 9:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 42 of 270 (541594)
01-04-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
01-04-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
ICANT, you are talking in circles again.
If they are living a life like Christ did then they are Christians.
BTW I haven't met one yet, and I sure don't claim to be one
In which case, you have watered down the meaning of the term so completely that it ceases to be meaningful. If you don't even claim to be a Christian yourself (even though it is clear to the rest of the English-speaking world that you are one), then any debate about whether Otti is Christian immediately becomes meaningless.
By your standards, Vincent Otti is not a Christian. But then, by your absurd standards, you are not a Christian, the Pope is not a Christian and no-one on the face of the Earth is a Christian.
As usual, you busy playing infantile word-games.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 2:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 11:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 270 (541595)
01-04-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
01-04-2010 11:31 AM


Re: Religion vs Secularism
Hyroglyphx writes:
I see extremely ignorant comments coming from both sides of the isle. I also see a lot of blameshifting going on as if the world's ills were as simple as religion versus secularism. Both are paranoid and both are delusional.
Hi Hyroglyphx.
Nobody has alleged that religion vs secularism is all that relates to the world's ills. Phat has implied that the fix for the world's ills is more education.
Let's recap the debate at hand:
The first responder to the OP, Parasomnium alleged that religion should be done away with, implying that religion was the big bad wolf.
Phat, the thread originato, responded by alleging that fundamentalist religion was the terroristic big bad wolf.
Buzsaw set the record straight that in fact, the Biblical NT written fundamentals allowed for no violent acts. Thus Biblical fundamentalists, which were implicated in Phat's statement, being religious fundamentalists, have never been a global terrorism problem.
In the course of debate, the religious/secularist issues became significantly relevant to the education and terrorism matters being debated, which leads to the question; who, in your view is acting delusional and parinoid?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-04-2010 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2010 5:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 44 of 270 (541602)
01-04-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
01-04-2010 5:25 PM


Re: Religion vs Secularism
Buz writes:
Buzsaw set the record straight that in fact, the Biblical NT written fundamentals allowed for no violent acts.
Erm OK. And Moslems also say that the Quran is a book that advocates peace. Yes?
Buz writes:
Thus Biblical fundamentalists, which were implicated in Phat's statement, being religious fundamentalists, have never been a global terrorism problem.
Well many Islamisists might disagree. Buz you have been one of the most vocal I have seen here regarding the use of torture, imprisonment and "pre-emptive strikes" in the "war on terror".
Can you honestly not see how a Middle Eastern Moslem might well see you as a supporter of terrorism as they perceive it to be?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 5:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2010 6:36 PM Straggler has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 270 (541604)
01-04-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by onifre
01-03-2010 9:12 PM


Re: Oh please, are you serious?
Onifre writes:
Several people have stated that the religious divide between Roman Catholics and Protestants was a contributing factor to The Troubles:
Indeed - it helped you recognise who your enemy was. Recognising who your enemy is, is sure way to contribute to trouble. The basis of the emnity wasn't so much religion as it was the result of (the often very cruel) colonialistation of Ireland by the 'Brits'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 01-03-2010 9:12 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by onifre, posted 01-04-2010 7:53 PM iano 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